A TOP defence lawyer has delivered a stinging condemnation of the recent review into Scotland's legal aid system, suggesting the man behind it lacked a "basic understanding of the realities of business".
Ken Dalling, a member of the Law Society of Scotland's board, accused Martyn Evans of making basic mistakes and challenged his conclusion that there is no evidence to justify increasing fees for solicitors.
Mr Evans, chief executive of the Carnegie UK Trust, chaired the Scottish Government's independent review into legal aid which reported back earlier this year.
- Herald View: Legal aid system must be fixed before it is too late
He accused legal aid lawyers of deriding the system they are part of and overplaying the case for an increase in fees.
But Mr Dalling, who has defended a number of high-profile criminal cases, heavily criticised his report and suggested Mr Evans didn't understand some of the key issues he was passing judgement on.
In an open letter published in The Journal – the law society's magazine – he wrote: "I note the reference you make to information provided to you by various focus groups.
"Whilst those who gave their time to input to your review should be commended, I respectfully suggest that ill-informed opinions should not inform policy – except regarding the need to educate the public."
He said the observation from one contributor that they had “never seen a poor lawyer” was “particularly unfortunate”, adding: “Poor lawyers go out of business.”
He wrote: “Your concern about a general increase in legal aid rates being unlikely to find public support is, I feel, nothing to the point.
“Solicitors undertaking the valuable work required in a legal aid sphere should be fairly remunerated for the work that they do.”
Mr Dalling went on to question Mr Evans’ conclusion that “some legal aid lawyers are well remunerated”, suggesting he had conflated payments made to firms with individual earnings.
He said: “The figures are in no way equivalent to a ‘wage’. I would have expected from you a basic understanding of the realities of business.”
The solicitor argued spending on legal aid “should be regarded as an investment” in access to justice and the rule of law.
Branding Mr Evans’ once in a generation review “disappointing”, he added: “If legal aid lawyers do ‘think they are the bottom of the barrel’, this can only be because it is how they are treated by their paymasters.
“It is hard to accept that you were unable to identify the evidence clearly supportive of just that.”
Mr Evans previously said he could “not find the evidence to justify” a general increase in fee rates, despite acknowledging the level of frustration among legal aid lawyers who have long argued they are not paid fairly for the work they do.
His review recommended a fundamental overhaul of the legal aid system to drive efficiencies – including an urgent probe into how fee levels are set, requiring lawyers to provide access to their accounts.
Ian Moir, co-convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s legal aid committee, said it had provided “robust evidence” to Mr Evans for an increase in fees, some of which have not changed since 1992.
He said: “We urgently need a long overdue increase in fees and regular reviews to replace what is currently a piecemeal approach. It is important for the Scottish Government to get on with delivering these changes.”
- Herald View: Legal aid system must be fixed before it is too late
Mr Dalling, who set up his Stirling-based firm in 1992, told The Herald he had received support from solicitors across Scotland following publication of his letter.
But Mr Evans insisted his review “considered the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including the legal profession's representative organisations and individual solicitors”.
He added: “The review is now under consideration with the Scottish Government and I look forward to seeing their response and the actions that will be undertaken as a result.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said the review was conducted by an independent panel, including lawyers, and with the input of a “wide range of stakeholders”.
She said it would consider the recommendations and outline “short, medium and long term ambitions for reform” in the autumn.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel