The Lord Chancellor puts the lawyers on trial

In place of legal aid

Related Topics
There is a brilliantly simple 19th century cartoon of two farmers sweatily tugging at a cow from each end; it's obvious that each is claiming ownership. Underneath the beast is a bewigged and smiling gentleman sitting comfortably on a stool milking. The drawing graphically illustrates a great truth about litigation - that the lawyers never lose. It's a great truth which nevertheless is about to be turned on its head. One criticism of the Government is that it hasn't made many enemies. That may now change. A hard choice is on its way. Tomorrow Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, takes on one of the most entrenched vested interests in the country - his own profession.

He will outline in a speech to the Law Society in Cardiff a genuinely radical reform to the legal system, in its own way the biggest since legal aid was first introduced by the Attlee government. It will extend across much of the civil justice system the revolutionary principle, tentatively and experimentally introduced by his predecessor for a small part of it, that lawyers should only be able to pick up their fees from litigants if they win their cases.

Conditional fees, often known as the "no win, no fee" system, are in essence a simple idea. The lawyer isn't paid if he loses a case for damages but increases his charges by helping himself to a percentage of the pay- out to his client if he wins. That way he covers the costs for the cases he loses. It should make litigation much more plausible for the growing group of people who aren't poor enough to qualify for legal aid but aren't rich enough to meet the costs themselves. It should indeed discourage many of the more frivolous cases; but it may well bring lawyers quite a lot of new business from those on middle incomes who shrink from the costs of litigation. The public will surely like the idea that lawyers at last have a powerful built-in financial incentive to perform well. But while it may be simple it isn't uncontroversial. The Bar Council, now surely the most formidable trade union in Britain, is marshalling its forces. The Law Society cannot be far behind.

What this is about, of course, is the spiralling legal aid budget. The principle that no-one should be excluded from going to court for damages by poverty is incontrovertible; but legal aid is a hungry monster. Since 1990-91, it has increased by 115 per cent, from pounds 682m to pounds 1.477bn. Ninety per cent goes on lawyers' fees. Since 1993-94, it has gone up by 22 per cent in a period of 7 per cent inflation. Legal aid has become for lawyers rather what housing benefit has become for landlords. It pays up relentlessly whatever the standard of service and the chances of a case succeeding. Suddenly, "no win, no fee" looks a much more attractive alternative. And Irvine will couple this with the new fast-track, fixed-cost regime for civil courts, recommended by Lord Woolf, which will deter paid by the hour barristers from spinning cases out as long as they want.

The Bar Council's objections have so far been unpersuasive, to put it mildly. In a letter to Lord Irvine, Robert Owen QC, the Council's chairman, uses the peculiar argument that the amount by which lawyers increase their fees for winning cases will be be fixed according to their assessment of how risky the case is. But since most clients won't be able to asses that risk themselves, they may have the wool pulled over their eyes and end up paying their lawyers more than they deserve. Never mind that this problem could be reduced by capping the fees increase; or that when a leading silk starts warning that lawyers may be paid too well, it strains credulity to breaking point. Is Mr Owen really saying that lawyers are such sharks that they can't be trusted to administer the system properly? And if he is, then shouldn't be looking a little more rigorously at the professional ethics of his colleagues?

There are, of course, potential problems, identified rather more cogently by the Legal Action Group than they have been by the Bar Council. One is that in cases of medical negligence actions - one of the principal deterrents against incompetence by surgeons and physicians - you need to spend around pounds 5,000 on medical examinations, expert reports, and so on, before anyone can even make a sensible judgement about whether it's worth bringing a case at all. If the client has to meet those costs, the poorest NHS patients, who are every bit as vulnerable to medical negligence as the better off, wouldn't even get to first base. Another is the problem of insuring against defeat in all kinds of cases. Even if the risk of defeat would be much less than it is under the present system, paying the other side's costs when that happens is still a daunting prospect for litigants, especially poorer ones. But instead of bleating, in tones of rather unconvincing altruism, about this problem, perhaps the legal profession should consider meeting those costs themselves. After all these will be cases they have already assessed have a good chance of success; for them litigation is a business proposition. Why shouldn't they pay some of the up-front costs themselves? Irvine will keep an open mind tomorrow; he won't rule out the possibility of keeping legal aid for some of these costs. But he will need a lot of convincing that they can't under the new regime be met by the lawyers themselves.

Certainly if the reform means that poor people can't bring cases that they have every chance of winning, then it will have failed. Lord Irvine will make it clear tomorrow that he has not intention of allowing poor litigants with good cases to fall through the net. But equally there is no reason why those who qualify for legal aid shouldn't have to consider the same question as those who pay for legal action out of their own money: has my case a good chance of succeeding?

This is a lot tougher than anything the previous government attempted on legal aid. But it goes with grain of its ideas about welfare reform. The public, if not the lawyers, will probably accept it because they don't believe, as they would have of the previous one, that this government is cutting for its own sake.It is possible, in the long run and within the long term public spending remit laid down by Gordon Brown to imagine saving from legal aid being spent on hospitals, or schools. Lawyers should remember that before they embark on a fight to the death.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Mobile Developer (.NET / C# / Jason / Jquery / SOA)

£40000 - £65000 per annum + bonus + benefits + OT: Ampersand Consulting LLP: M...

Humanities Teacher - Greater Manchester

£22800 - £33600 per annum: Randstad Education Manchester Secondary: The JobAt ...

Design Technology Teacher

£22800 - £33600 per annum: Randstad Education Manchester Secondary: Calling al...

Foundation Teacher

£100 - £125 per day: Randstad Education Chelmsford: EYFS Teachers - East Essex...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Critics of Fiona Woolf say she should step down amid accusations of an establishment cover-up  

Fiona Woolf resignation: As soon as she became the story, she had to leave

James Ashton

Letters: Electorate should be given choice on drugs policy

Independent Voices
Bryan Adams' heartstopping images of wounded British soldiers to go on show at Somerset House

Bryan Adams' images of wounded soldiers

Taken over the course of four years, Adams' portraits are an astonishing document of the aftermath of war
The drugs revolution starts now as MPs agree its high time for change

The drugs revolution starts now as MPs agree its high time for change

Commons debate highlights growing cross-party consensus on softening UK drugs legislation, unchanged for 43 years
The camera is turned on tabloid editors in Richard Peppiatt's 'One Rogue Reporter'

Gotcha! The camera is turned on tabloid editors

Hugh Grant says Richard Peppiatt's 'One Rogue Reporter' documentary will highlight issues raised by Leveson
Fall of the Berlin Wall: It was thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev that this symbol of division fell

Fall of the Berlin Wall

It was thanks to Gorbachev that this symbol of division fell
Halloween 2014: What makes Ouija boards, demon dolls, and evil clowns so frightening?

What makes ouija boards and demon dolls scary?

Ouija boards, demon dolls, evil children and clowns are all classic tropes of horror, and this year’s Halloween releases feature them all. What makes them so frightening, decade after decade?
A safari in modern Britain: Rose Rouse reveals how her four-year tour of Harlesden taught her as much about the UK as it did about NW10

Rose Rouse's safari in modern Britain

Rouse decided to walk and talk with as many different people as possible in her neighbourhood of Harlesden and her experiences have been published in a new book
Welcome to my world of no smell and odd tastes: How a bike accident left one woman living with unwanted food mash-ups

'My world of no smell and odd tastes'

A head injury from a bicycle accident had the surprising effect of robbing Nell Frizzell of two of her senses

Matt Parker is proud of his square roots

The "stand-up mathematician" is using comedy nights to preach maths to big audiences
Paul Scholes column: Beating Manchester City is vital part of life at Manchester United. This is first major test for Luke Shaw, Angel Di Maria and Radamel Falcao – it’s not a game to lose

Paul Scholes column

Beating City is vital part of life at United. This is first major test for Shaw, Di Maria and Falcao – it’s not a game to lose
Frank Warren: Call me an old git, but I just can't see that there's a place for women’s boxing

Frank Warren column

Call me an old git, but I just can't see that there's a place for women’s boxing
Adrian Heath interview: Former Everton striker prepares his Orlando City side for the MLS - and having Kaka in the dressing room

Adrian Heath's American dream...

Former Everton striker prepares his Orlando City side for the MLS - and having Kaka in the dressing room
Simon Hart: Manchester City will rise again but they need to change their attitude

Manchester City will rise again but they need to change their attitude

Manuel Pellegrini’s side are too good to fail and derby allows them to start again, says Simon Hart
Isis in Syria: A general reveals the lack of communication with the US - and his country's awkward relationship with their allies-by-default

A Syrian general speaks

A senior officer of Bashar al-Assad’s regime talks to Robert Fisk about his army’s brutal struggle with Isis, in a dirty war whose challenges include widespread atrocities