|
"In the profession and the party-campaigning for justice for all"
The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association
- Comprises barristers, solicitors, academics, legal executives, law students and other legal professionals, plus others with an interest in the law, who are members of the Liberal Democrats.
- Has members practising in all areas of the law, with considerable diversity of legal knowledge and experience.
- Campaigns for liberal values in law reform and for the protection of civil liberties and human rights in the legal system and in our substantive law.
- Contributes to the Liberal Democrats' policy making through working parties on legal policy and law reform.
- Briefs members of the United Kingdom, European and Scottish Parliaments, the Welsh Assembly and other elected bodies on legal issues.
- Responds to government consultations on proposed legislation.
- Publishes the Legal Democrat magazine and a newsletter, which are free to members.
- Organises regular conferences, lectures and meetings.
- Holds an excellent annual dinner.
- Is a registered CPD provider for relevant events.
A message from the chairman - Alistair Webster Q.C.
Alistair Webster Q.C.
As we enter a new year, may I send best wishes to all members and all those who are sympathetic to the causes which we espouse.
2011 was a year which was not without its frustrations. I have written before about the damage which the proposed cuts to the legal aid budget are likely to inflict. Taking the need for savings as a given, there are better ways to achieve the desired result than those included in the current Bill. We have been lobbying hard and are putting forward sensible proposals to government, particularly in relation to alternative forms of funding which could relieve the legal aid budget of some of its demands.
The impression which I have got, I am afraid to say, is that the civil servants who advise the ministers are reluctant to think out of the box and are completely indifferent to the damage which will be caused. They are simply in denial.
Legal aid lawyers have already taken huge hits to their incomes, to the point where many are already quitting the field. It is simply not sustainable to think that they will be replaced by reasonably competent substitutes: they will not. It is sad to relate that I have personal knowledge of very bright graduates who have come to the profession determined to work in publicly funded practice, dealing with the sorts of issues which citizens, as opposed to businesses, need, and they have given up, disillusioned by the ridiculous LSC bureaucracy and by the inability to make a sensible living: they feel like they are being treated as some sort of enemy to the body politic.
This reflects my own perception that the LSC's procedures seem to be based upon the twin misconceptions that:
1. Every lawyer with whom they deal is a potential fraudster;
2. Quality can be guaranteed by quality assurance methods: the triumph of procedure over outcome.
The fact is that standards are slipping, visibly and inexorably. Corners are being cut in order to survive. The bureaucratic burden of practising is increasing exponentially.
But the government simply closes its eyes and seems determined to walk over the edge of the cliff, hoping that it will all work out: IT WON'T.
There is a long and dishonourable history of serial incompetence on the part of the government and its quangos in relation to the legal profession, with the laws of unintended consequences ( albeit consequences of which they were thoroughly and repeatedly warned ) asserting themselves in full vigour.
Some of these failings have been well identified by the excellent reports of Alan Beith's Committee.
I was listening to Jack Straw fulminating about claims farmers this weekend. I must confess that I found it to be a stomach churning performance, and one which gives a salutary lesson of the effects of ignoring clear warnings as to policy.
There he was, looking, as ever, like a morose vicar ( his political career has always reminded me of the Vicar of Bray ), complaining about personal injury claims, insurers, lawyers et al.
Yet, what is it which brought this situation about? The actions of his very own government when, during its first term, without the measure having been hinted at in the manifesto at the previous election, legal aid for personal injury claims was abolished.
Until then, personal injury claims were the province of lawyers who were reasonably specialised, and who were, with few exceptions judging from my extensive experience of them, professional and able to make a reasonable living in a professional manner. Because approximately 90% ( from memory ) of cases resulted in a payment to the claimant, the provisions whereby the tortfeasor had to repay to the state any benefits paid out meant that the whole scheme was of minimal cost when the recoupment of those benefits were taken into consideration.
I remember writing a response to the consultation paper from the previous Tory government on the subject. I pointed out the undesirability of giving the lawyer a direct interest in the result of the claim. It seemed to me then, as has been well demonstrated by events since, that such a clear conflict of interest would be the start of a slippery slope. If the government shows itself as being indifferent to such a conflict of interest, then why, the lawyers naturally asked themselves, should we worry about it? If the drivers are to be more focussed on economics, as the government clearly wants, why should we not push our own economic interests further to the front?
Out of this desperate policy mistake, the whole ghastly panoply of the present claims industry grew. It became more expensive. Unfair to claimants and insurers alike. Riddled with conflicts of interest. Driven by financial considerations to the extent that the claimant and his claim became a commodity.
And Straw and his colleagues watched their creation grow, ever bigger and ever more unsatisfactory, exhibiting every undesirable feature which had been predicted as a result.
And so a period of silence on his part would be most welcome, unless he is to acknowledge his own role in letting all this happen.
And, even more importantly, it should act as a salutory warning to the present government. In our motion at the Sheffield Conference, overwhelmingly supported by Conference, we made clear calls for proper piloting and assessment before any further steps were taken. This is essential so that similar mistakes, with their serious consequences, will not reoccur. Could you all please reinforce this message to your MPs. Otherwise, I can guarantee that disaster looms.
Finally, my best wishes for 2012.
Alistair Webster Q.C.
| 