On August 7th, Manchester Law Society hosted a lunch with the Deputy PM at his request so that he could take the views of the legal profession.
Approximately 20 people from various aspects of the legal profession attended with a wide array of representation from commercial lawyers, to lawyers from consumer focussed firms (like Stephensons), lawyers from pure legal aid firms, barristers, CPS, costs lawyers and an employment consultant. We had an hour of the DPM’s very valuable time.
The discussion started with the economy, with a point raised about how the banks are making life very difficult for small businesses by pulling the plug on previously good lending. The DPM shared with us his view of what is happening in our economy and how difficult it is going to be to fix it. He said that our current “economic environment is unprecedented in the post war period”. I don’t suppose that any of us really disagreed with that; how to fix it is the key.
The DPM very openly shared with us the difficulties in asking the banks on the one hand to increase their capital reserves and lend more prudently and on the other hand getting them to fuel the economy by increased lending to small businesses. This, he says, is the reason for the new lending scheme (Funding For Lending Scheme) which allows the Bank of England to lend directly to small businesses, something which has never happened before. All credit to the DPM he didn’t pretend that there were any easy answers, or that they had got everything right, just that at least he understood the problems and they are trying to move it forward, albeit slowly. He did think that there was a potential for our much beleaguered manufacturing sector to become stronger and grow over the next few years which was encouraging.
The discussion soon turned to legal aid issues and the plight of the ordinary consumer who very soon will have nowhere to turn for access to justice. Access to justice is a fundamental right in a democratic society. What is to happen to people who need advice when they cannot contact their children following a divorce?
The Courts will become clogged up with litigants in person and that is not in anyone’s interest. High street lawyers will no longer exist as the shape of the profession changes, experts are predicting that the numbers of law firms will reduce from the current 11,000 to an estimated 5,000 over the next few years; the ones to disappear will be the small, high street law firms. This is not just as a result of LASPO, but also increased competition because of ABSs and the state of the economy generally with banks refusing to lend to solicitors.
Once the infrastructure of high street firms is dismantled it won’t be easy to put back again when people start to realise that access to justice is something beyond the reach of ordinary people. Sadly the discussion became mired in a detailed debate about domestic violence, with the DPM saying that the government listened to the views of the profession on LASPO and made significant concessions by extending the definition of domestic violence. He misunderstood the point which was very well put to him that more people will make allegations of domestic abuse in order to obtain funding for the rest of their marital breakdown issues.
He turned this point around and argued that it had been wrong to extend the definition of domestic abuse if people were going to make up allegations in order to get funding. The debate didn’t really go any further forward than that as the DPM exhibited a politician’s skill in not answering the point put to him.
On ABSs the DPM’s view was that surely increased competition was a good thing. Well yes, provided there is a level playing field. When new entrants have very deep pockets and won’t mind making losses for a few years in order to gain market share and change the shape of the market then it isn’t really a level playing field. This point wasn’t really taken up because the conversation moved on.
The criminal lawyers wanted to know about the proposed pilot for 24 hour 7 day per week Courts – who is going to pay for this? Who is going to represent the defendants? The point was again well made that there is actually no demand for increased numbers of Courts with the numbers of prosecutions falling, so what is the point of this and where has the suggestion come from?
The Deputy PM explained that this is a response to demands from the public for justice to be seen to be done i.e. for cause and effect to be more closely linked in time. The proposal was simply to run a pilot to see how effective this would be. There didn’t seem to be an easy answer as to how it would be funded, or where the duty solicitors would come from. Neither was the point made that the Police are making fewer and fewer prosecutions for different reasons and that the general public would probably be horrified if they knew what criminals are getting away with, there simply wasn’t time for that.
In all this was an interesting discussion. I warmed to the DPM who at least had the courage to come and talk to us and explain his views. Did he understand the detail of LASPO? No, I don’t think so, but then he probably shouldn’t have to, that’s Ken Clarke’s job.
Does he care about the imminent dismantling of the legal profession? No I don’t think so, “increased competition is a good thing” and so, impliedly, all that springs from it must also be good.
Lawyers will always want to get involved in the details of an argument whilst the DPM’s input must always be at a more strategic level, but at least you had the impression that he was trying to engage with us. Whether anything will come of the discussion is very doubtful indeed!
By Stephensons' Chairwoman Ann Harrison