Hudson hits back at criminal legal aid critics

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, has hit back at critics of the society's agreement with justice secretary Chris Grayling on criminal legal aid.

The move comes after Hudson was heckled by solicitors and barristers at a meeting in London last week and James Parry, partner at Parry Welch Lacey in Liverpool, gathers signatures for a vote of no confidence in the society's leadership.

In an open letter to the profession, Hudson said he wished to "restate unequivocally" the society's opposition to Grayling's fee cuts.

"Many of our members would have preferred us to take a much more oppositional stance, refusing to engage, standing firm, just saying no, and supporting direct action. We understand that viewpoint, and did not dismiss it lightly.

"There is no doubt that the society could have made itself much more popular by taking such an approach. However, we cannot see any path by which that strategy could lead to a better outcome for our members."

Hudson referred to an article published in Solicitors Journal by David Gilmore, director of LegalVoice, in which Gilmore said that his experience of senior management at the Legal Aid Board was that "it was a damn sight easier to push reforms through if the other side is not engaging".

Hudson said the society had presented all the "available arguments (and empirically-based evidence) as to why the fee cuts are neither necessary nor reasonable" but the society could not "require" the MoJ to accept it.

"The profession has been admirably united in opposing price-competitive tendering. It has not been unified around any positive alternative agenda.

"The Lord Chancellor is perfectly able to ignore opposition in the absence of a well-evidenced alternative. Without an alternative as proposed by the Law Society, I am sure that the MoJ would still be pursuing a PCT-based approach."

In addition to its concern about the level of fee cuts, Hudson said the society was concerned that national fixed fees would have a disproportionate impact on certain areas, particularly London and the South East, which could turn a cut of 17.5 per cent into 40 per cent.

He said the revised fee structures meant that the same fee could be paid for guilty pleas and for trials on a not guilty plea.

"This could be construed as contrary to the rule of law and risks undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

"Clients who do not trust correct advice to plead guilty may be more likely to plead not guilty, causing additional cost, and additional stress to victims and witnesses."

Hudson said that the society had not been able to agree with the MoJ on the number of duty solicitor slots to be offered, and the society wanted the maximum number "consistent with economic viability."

He added: "We do not wish to see firms arbitrarily driven out of the market because the MoJ has chosen an unnecessarily low figure. This would not only be bad for firms, it would be bad for their clients, and disruptive for the criminal justice system too."