Criminal lawyer demands vote of no confidence in Law Society leadership

A solicitor advocate in Liverpool has started a campaign for a motion of no confidence in the Law Society's leadership in the wake of its deal with justice secretary Chris Grayling on criminal legal aid.

Registration for the quality assurance scheme for advocates (QASA) opens today, a scheme which criminal barristers are threatening to boycott and many solicitor advocates would be happy to see collapse.

Following talks with Chancery Lane, the justice secretary announced earlier this month that he agreed to abandon price competitive tendering (PCT) but demanded a 17.5 per cent cut in criminal legal aid fees. The Law Society opposes the fee cut.

James Parry, partner at Parry Welch Lacey, said his request for a special general meeting of the Law Society to debate the no confidence motion needed 100 signatures, which he was confident of getting in next few days.

The motion declares that members have "no confidence in the ability" of Nicholas Fluck, president of the Law Society, and Des Hudson, chief executive, to "properly and effectively represent" legal aid solicitors in negotiations with Grayling.

"I am told by Des Hudson that he regards what was achieved as the best deal on the table and, without it, PCT would have been imposed on us," Parry said. "I am told that if I persist, PCT could still be imposed.

"What disappoints me is that for the first time for a long time we had a united approach by solicitors and barristers that we would fight these proposals properly. There was also support in the media.

"The opportunity was there for someone to lead from the front and drive home to the Lord Chancellor that these cuts are ridiculous and opposed by the majority of people.

"The opportunity was there to push and push. It would have put us in a better place to sustain a decent practice for all our clients."

Parry said he understood that a consortium of 200-250 of the bigger criminal legal aid firms were involved in the negotiations between the Law Society and MoJ and put forward a solution, but was unclear about the details.

"I am sure that firms will close," Parry said. "Some have said to me that 17.5 per cent is their profit margin'. Others have said: 'It's more than my profit margin'.

"The only question is how many will close immediately and how many will struggle on. The cuts imposed will be devastating to the profession."

The motion was featured last week on legal aid website ilegal, run by Patrick Torsney.

"This is an issue that needs to be settled," Torsney said. "In fact, I would have hoped by now that in the face of such obvious opposition to the tactics it employed, the Law Society would have taken the initiative, called for an SGM itself, and hammered this out on the anvil of debate once and for all without needing to be prompted."

The motion states that Fluck and Hudson "purported to enter into an agreement with the Lord Chancellor without a mandate from those members of the Society who practice publicly funded criminal law and in circumstances where the purported agreement was to the detriment of and against the will those members and to the maintenance of a sustainable legal aid service to those subject to criminal proceedings."