Access to civil legal aid to rise for Scots as income limit hits £25k

Legal Aid access has been increased for many, announces the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill .. but the proof of increased legal aid access will be in the eating, so to speak, when claimants find out the 'increased access' is actually more of giving them extra time to pay their legal aid bills .. since contributions are going up too ... (naughty MacAskill missing out that bit - Ed)

Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board :

Legal support for middle-income households

The Scottish Government today extended legal aid rules to one million more Scots – enabling them to apply for financial support when protecting their housing, employment and family rights.

Anyone with a disposable income of £25,000 or less will be eligible to apply for civil legal aid. The previous limit was £10,306.

Ministers pledged the change - meaning that around three-quarters of all adults will potentially be eligible for legal aid - in November, as part of their wider support for people during the economic downturn.

The Scottish Government is also investing an additional £3 million to enhance the national availability of advice and representation, including people at risk of repossession.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: “The Scottish Government is determined to use the powers at our disposal to help those facing difficult and uncertain times during the current economic slump.

“We have taken a series of steps to help hard-pressed families and businesses, to improve financial advice to vulnerable individuals and to stimulate growth in the economy.

“Today we will, at a stroke, bring one million more Scots into potential eligibility for legal aid, where previously their disposable income automatically ruled them out of being considered.

“We believe the change is long overdue as the system has for many years unfairly excluded people of relatively modest means from pursuing what might be a complex and expensive legal action.

“The reformed financial eligibility limits, including a tapered contribution regime, provides a fairer system which can help many more people at just the time they might need it most.”

Lindsay Montgomery, Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board added:

“This opens up access to justice for more people and is particularly welcome news in a difficult economic climate.

“This substantial increase in financial eligibility for civil legal aid will help people who previously would not have been able to afford to pursue or defend their case.

“It will also mean that those with higher disposable incomes will pay a proportionate contribution towards their case.”

Notes for News Editors:

1. Civil legal aid provides funding for a solicitor to take a case to court, including preparation and the hearing itself, as well as funding for advocates and experts if needed.

2. Financial eligibility for legal aid is means-tested on an applicant's disposable income (including deductions for maintenance payments and childcare or travel costs associated with work, as well as an allowance for the costs of providing for dependants) and capital assets (including savings and investments, but not their home).

3. Under the new rules, civil legal aid applicants would pay the following contribution from their disposable income:

* No contribution if annual disposable income is below £3,156;
* One third of the amount by which their disposable income exceeds £3,355, up to £10,995;
* plus 50% of any disposable income between £10,996 and £15,000;
* plus 100% of any disposable income over £15,001 up to the upper limit of £25,000.

The rest of any case costs would be met through legal aid payments.

4. To date around 43% of Scottish households are potentially eligible to access civil legal assistance under the legal aid scheme. The rise in upper disposable income limit to £25,000 will bring this to around 74%. Financial eligibility tests in England and Wales are not directly comparable. However, the monthly disposable income limit for legal aid south of the border is approximately equivalent to £8,376 over one year and the estimated eligibility rate in 2007 was around 29% of households.

5. In addition to financial qualification, applicants must meet two other statutory tests: they must have a legal basis for the case and it must be reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case that they should receive legal aid (e.g. it may not be reasonable to grant legal aid to enable the applicant to sue someone who has no resources or where the applicant is able to receive financial help from other sources such as a trade union, insurance company or professional body).

6. In November the Deputy First Minister announced an additional £3 million over two years to enhance the availability of legal advice and representation for people facing repossession and other problems, such as debt, through In-Court services, and assistance provided by local solicitors, advice agencies and Scottish Legal Aid Board.

7. A Repossessions Group, established by Ministers to examine other measures to support homeowners at risk of losing their home, is due to report to Ministers by the end of April.

8. In January Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing established the Debt Action Forum, a panel of experts chaired by the Minister to examine information and initiatives on debt relief, debt advice and repossession and recommend a package of legislative and non-legislative measures to tackle the issues. He also announced improvements to the Debt Arrangement Scheme which helps people with disposable incomes to pay back their debts over a longer period, free from the threat of legal action.

9. Illustrative examples of how the changes will affect certain types of household are available here: Extended eligibility examples

Glasgow lawyers who fought legal aid cuts claimed millions in legal aid

Big surprise … the legal firms which make up the Glasgow Bar Association, who were recently caught paying a public relations firm to spike legal aid reform, claimed many millions of pounds from the legal aid budget themselves …

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers fighting Legal Aid cuts claimed £8m

Revealed: how the legal association campaigning against changes to the justice system stood to lose from reforms

By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor

A LEGAL body that funded a secret campaign against justice reforms that will make its members poorer is run by a group of lawyers whose firms have claimed almost £8 million in criminal defence fees.

The executive committee of the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA), which hired a PR company to attack a government policy that will cut the Legal Aid bill, is made up of 13 lawyers whose companies took in nearly £13m of public money over the same period.

One of the solicitors on the committee, Ally Thomson, said the system was forcing colleagues to work "out of their bedrooms".

The firm that employs Thomson, Carr and Co, has claimed £2,335,500 in Legal Aid since 2003.

The summary justice reforms introduced earlier this year were supposed to speed up the system by punishing low-level offenders with fines or a warning, instead of having the cases heard in court. But the system has been plagued by negative publicity after a spate of stories appeared which showed apparently serious offences being diverted from the courtroom.

However, the Sunday Herald disclosed last week that much of the coverage had been driven by a PR company, McGarvie Morrison Media (MMM), which was paid by the GBA to attack the reforms.

Law firms stand to lose chunks of their £122m Legal Aid subsidy from the new system as fewer court appearances will mean a fall in claims.

The Sunday Herald can reveal the firms which employ the 13 members of the GBA's executive committee are major beneficiaries of the Legal Aid regime, with the dozen or so firms having claimed £7,918,300 in "criminal and children's" fees since 2003, and £12,876,400 overall in legal aid during the same period.

MathesonRitchie, a firm that has GBA president Sara Matheson as a partner, claimed £418,400 in the criminal fees section and £791,600 in total during the same period.

The Lambie Law Partnership, at which GBA treasurer Phil Cohen works as a solicitor, clawed back £1,113,700 in criminal and children's fees, and £1,694,000 overall in legal aid.

GBA vice-president David O'Hagan's firm, Hughes Dowdall, also benefited from the old system, as the company claimed £511,700 in the criminal subsidies category and £997,200 from the entire system.

Fitzpatrick and Co, home to GBA executive member Gerard Considine, took in £1,107,900 in criminal and children's fees since 2003, which contributed to a total legal aid subsidy of £1,577, 600.

Dunipace Brown, of which the GBA's Colin Dunipace is listed as a partner, claimed £1,088,600 in criminal subsidies section, and £1,401,400 in Legal Aid since 2003.

Another committee member, Ally Thomson, is a vocal opponent of the new summary justice reforms, as made clear in an interview he gave to legal website CaseCheck.

Put to him that "lack of remuneration" was now a problem for lawyers, he said: "There is more legislation than ever, more preliminary points to consider, the law is getting more and more complex, and we are getting to the stage where very experienced criminal practitioners are working out of their bedrooms. Guys with 25 years of experience can't afford an office - it is ridiculous."

According to government figures, Thomson's firm, Carr and Co, has claimed £1,291,800 in criminal and children's legal aid since 2003, and £2,335,500 overall, the largest subsidy of all the 13 firms.

The president of the GBA, Sara Matheson, said: "The figures quoted are earnings and not profit, and include VAT and expenses. These law firms include some of the biggest practices in the country and employ several criminal lawyers across a number of offices."

She added: "Lawyers have a highly responsible job that involves up to seven years of training, but some criminal lawyers are now earning less per hour than unskilled workers. Some of the fees paid to solicitors have not been increased since 1992."

Glasgow Bar Association paid PR firm to hit legal aid proposals

More skulduggery from the Glasgow Bar Association, who along with elements of the Law Society of Scotland, used Public Relations firms to attack legal aid reforms aimed at cutting public money for wider access to justice.

For those who are interested .. the Justice Secretary knew all about it of course .. as did the Law Society … shock, horror !

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers paid PR firm to attack reforms which cut legal aid income

Scare stories about new system were placed by media company

By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor

AT FIRST sight, the recent media coverage about how new criminal justice reforms were allowing yobs to walk away from their crimes with a fine seemed only to be a reflection of public concerns.

The last Scottish Executive's summary justice proposals, which came into force on March 10, were intended to speed up the system by keeping low-level criminals out of court and instead punishing them with either a fine or a warning.

In practice, "reform" was allowing people charged with assault to get away with a £150 fine, a sanction which was bizarrely applied to two women who attacked a nurse with a glass.
advertisement

The result was a plethora of stories about "soft touch" Scotland and a barrage of criticism for the SNP government and prosecutors.

However, the Sunday Herald can reveal that much of the coverage was being driven by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) - a body representing the legal profession in the west of Scotland - which had hired a PR firm, McGarvie Morrison Media (MMM), to attack a key plank of the criminal justice system.

A consequence of the fiscal fines system, otherwise known as "diversion", is that people charged with low-level crimes need not get bogged down in drawn-out court cases, thus depriving lawyers of legal aid.

Statistics from the Scottish Legal Aid Board show how lucrative state cash is for law firms. In 2006-2007, firms received £122 million for work done.

In other words, Glasgow's legal establishment has been bankrolling a secret campaign to attack a set of reforms that will reduce the subsidies for wealthy law firms.

A leaked letter from last month between two solicitors makes clear MMM's remit to mount a campaign against a set of reforms that had widespread cross-party support at the time.

"As you will probably know, they GBA have employed media consultants who have basically commenced a campaign through the Scottish Sun regarding diversion being used in serious cases rather than prosecuting somebody in court. The consultants are looking for any cases where it would appear that diversion has been used for something more serious than it should have."

The letter continued: "Apparently the consultants are offering discretion and confidentiality and if any member has such a case they want to report to them they should send an email to john@mmm.pr."

The email address was for John Morrison, a founding director of MMM, which for the last two months has placed stories and trawled for negative diversion cases on behalf of their well-paid clients.

MMM, a Labour-supporting PR firm which donated £2000 to the party last year, lists a number of its clients on its website, but not the GBA.

But the blurb on its site states: "We deploy our experiences, skills and contacts to ensure that MMM campaigns make headlines and achieve results."

The firm's "discreet" strategy appears to have had one central plank: find bad examples of diversion and hand them to the media. It is a tactic that has certainly made headlines.

A raft of articles in broadsheet and tabloid newspapers have focused on individual cases of diversion, which were accompanied by either statistics or obliging quotes from a member of the GBA.

In one July report, published in The Sun, GBA past president Gerard Considine was quoted on the summary reforms: "I can't see how this is about protecting the public from harm."

In an earlier article in the same newspaper, Considine had another criticism of the system: "This is undermining the credibility of the justice system."

Sara Matheson, the current president of the GBA, also hit out at the new regime. "This is a matter that should concern the general public," she said.

Another piece, in The Sunday Times in June, reported how lawyers had "compiled a dossier" of cases in which serious crimes had been "downgraded" to free up court time.

This time, Edinburgh Bar Association president Kenneth Cloggie popped up with a quote: "It seems to be a bit of a lottery depending on the fiscal you get on the day."

Cloggie's email address was also listed in a fax obtained by the Sunday Herald as the contact for suitable examples of "direct measures", such as fiscal fines, for use in a BBC programme on the matter.

Morrison said of MMM's work: "Our company was recently appointed as short-term media advisers to the Glasgow Bar Association. There has been intense press and media interest in issues linked to summary justice reform and the use of fiscal fines. The GBA asked MMM to provide advice on how best to deal with inquiries from journalists and to help promote their point of view."

He added: "The GBA have consistently argued that fiscal fines are not in the public interest, because some offenders who are guilty of violent and other serious offences are not being convicted through the courts and escape without a criminal record."

Matheson defended the GBA hiring the PR firm. "The overwhelming motivation was to have some assistance with the press. They are helping us with all aspects of getting our message across," she said. "Our members are gravely concerned about diversion and the effect it will have on the public."

On whether the legal aid aspect of the summary justice reforms was part of the reason for hiring MMM, she said: "That's certainly one aspect, but it's not the only driving force."

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill MSP, who concedes that there are problems with the system, said: "I regret that the Glasgow Bar Association have paid lobbyists in order to trawl around for mistakes. It doesn't serve them well.

"We want to reward lawyers for doing their job, not have people playing the system. Unfortunately, it does seem that a small minority of lawyers want to persist in milking the system.

"The two-month media blitz on the summary justice reforms, far from being a bottom-up process reflecting public anxiety, appears to have been a campaign manufactured by a PR company and paid for by a legal establishment that has a financial interest in resisting the new system."