Barristers refuse to act in 40 high cost legal aid cases

Barristers are refusing to act in 40 very high cost criminal cases or VHCCs, in a protest over legal aid fee cuts, the Criminal Bar Association has said.

Chairman Nigel Lithman QC is leading from the front by refusing to act in a retrial starting in July 2014. The Legal Aid Agency has announced that all trials after April 1 2014 will be paid at the new rates, which are subject to a 30 per cent cut.

The move comes after some of the biggest criminal law firms, including Tuckers, Burton Copeland, Hill Dickinson and Irwin Mitchell, agreed not to let their solicitor advocates take-over work on VHCCs rejected by barristers.

In today's Monday message on the CBA's website Lithman said: "I have received 40 emails in a 24 hour period. They range from the sad to the militant. They all carry the same message. Those involved in these 40 cases will not do them.

"Of course the overwhelming majority of VHCCs are multi-handed. It follows that at the least, these 40 trials (with probably twice as many counsel involved) will not be done by them.

"They are in Nottingham, Bristol, Manchester, Wales and London. They will not be picked up by others. I also have a VHCC case, a retrial due to start in July 2014. Neither myself of my junior will be re-entering the contract to work at the cut rates."

Lithman said criminal barristers already gave many hours pro bono, but they needed to make a living.

"This will lead to soul-searching and heartache, but the government understands that our hand has been forced and our campaign is do or die.

"The government clearly relies on us breaking ranks. A number of us are working day and night on your behalf to oppose these cuts. We have the support of over 95 per cent of chambers as expressed through their heads of chambers responses."

Lithman added: "If there is anyone considering accepting a VHCC brief, knowing that his or her predecessor has refused it to support the Bar's resolve not to accept work at cut rates, we ask you to stop and think again.

"Such action would only help the government to steam roller ahead and would be regarded as thoroughly selfish and a betrayal of the junior Bar whom we are trying to protect by fighting our platform on VHCCs first.

"I cannot imagine heads of chambers and senior clerks being content for this to happen in their chambers. It would be shameful."