Divide and rule
So, the justice secretary likes solicitors and is fed up with barristers. Chris Grayling's appearance at this morning's justice select committee could not have gone any worse as far as the Bar is concerned. Not only was the Bar failing to respond properly to his plans or to co-operate on quality standards, there were too many criminal legal aid barristers and a lot of them were "struggling to get enough work".
In contrast the Law Society was praised and will be involved in "direct talks", which apparently are taking place right now, before the new consultation is launched in September. This is heart-warming, in a way, but it puts the society in an unenviable position. It has agreed that there needs to be "consolidation" and the number of firms needs to be cut, but by how much? Does the society really go along with the cut in fees of 17.5 per cent or more that Grayling is demanding?
There was speculation that the justice secretary would opt for a policy of 'divide and rule', but one that favoured barristers. Now, he is counting on the Law Society to save him from the "chaotic" situation that he admitted could follow if he simply applied a huge cut in fees and waited to see what happened. At least he recognised that he is not going to be rescued by "giant national brands" like Stobart and is relying on "decent, medium-sized firms", which no doubt includes big firms like Tuckers.
This returns us to the final years of the last government, in which the big firms held discussions behind closed doors on 'best value' tendering. The difference is that the Law Society was not involved, and its successful judicial review led to the end of the project. There will have to be plenty of hard bargaining over the summer but there are huge risks for the society in appearing to endorse a drastically slimmed down criminal legal aid service.
There was much grimmer news from the select committee on civil legal aid. The justice secretary said he stood "very firmly behind" the principle of the residence test, while conceding that it should not apply to babies which had not been in the UK for 12 months.
On this point he was in agreement with the Society of Conservative Lawyers, which supported the residence test while opposing price competitive tendering.
Grayling made no concessions at all on prison law or on judicial review, which he said was often used as a "delaying tactic or PR tool".
Having committed the MoJ to making huge savings over the next few years, he knows he must deliver. By working with the Law Society, he is hoping to avoid a criminal justice 'car crash', but just as with the benefit cuts, there will certainly be casualties.