CBA caught between 'rock and hard place', Lithman insists

The Criminal Bar Association was caught between a "rock and a hard place" when it accepted justice secretary Chris Grayling's legal aid deal last week, chairman Nigel Lithman QC has argued.

The move was met with widespread anger from solicitors, a wave of statements from chambers disassociating themselves from the deal and the resignation of CBA executive committee members.

The CBA responded by announcing a ballot, which will take place this week, following demands for an extraordinary general meeting.

In his Monday message, Lithman said the CBA was caught between a "rock and a hard place". He said accepting the deal would give a "a start point on which we can build" rather than "waiting a very long time for the offer or any better offer to come round again".

Lithman said the CBA had been left in "absolutely no doubt" when it accepted the deal that the government had moved as far as it would go.

If barristers voted against it, the MoJ would take it off the table, and the 6 per cent cut in advocates' graduated fees would be implemented this summer, rather than after the general election, if at all.

"The Bar's position has been to maintain that it would not work at reduced rates. How long will the individuals be able to sustain this? I ask myself this: is it right that to secure a fair deal on contracts and fee cuts for solicitors, the Bar has to maintain its stance that it will not work at the reduced rates, while the solicitors firms continue to work and earn?

"The financial risks involved are surely the same for everyone and therefore ought to be fairly shared."

The ballot question barristers are being asked is: 'Do you wish to continue no returns and days of action until all the cuts and reductions in (solicitors') contracts are abandoned?'

Lithman, who said he would be voting 'no', said achieving the demands of 'yes voters' would require a "10 fold climbdown by the government".

He added that the CBA believed that by summer 2015 it would be clear that savings from falling crime rates and an analysis of the earnings of criminal advocates would make it unnecessary for the deferred cuts to be introduced, either for the Bar or solicitors.