Law Society chiefs face confidence vote over “abject surrender” in legal aid battle

  • Print
  • Comments (10)

Readers' comments (10)

  • I am sure this will receive widespread support (and that that support will not be limtied to the 'usual suspectss') and hope it can lead to a cleaning of stables (the horse long sicne having bolted) which is not before time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not before time we may engender a sense of accountability in the Law Society who have failed to secure the interests of criminal legal aid solicitors . As bad as this is they are arrogant enough to proceed without any consultation with the people they are meant to serve.

    Taking on the MOJ would actually be easier without the involvement of the current regime at the Law Society.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am surprised that the Lawyer has not highlighted the article in last week's edition of The Times in which a barrister openly called the current head of the Law Society a Judas. It is not only solicitors who are livid about the Law Society's conduct.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good riddance to the LS.
    We need our own union like the CBA.
    Shame on the gazette for not covering this story.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is sad that this should have been necessary but unfortunately it would be seem to be only way for practitioners to distance themselves publicly from the "deal" which Messrs. Hudson and Fluck have brokered. The Law Society negotiated behind the back of the Bar, which they should not have done, and without anyone from the CLSA (Criminal Law Solicitors Association) the only truly representative body of criminal practitioners or the LCCSA, which again they should not have done. The Law Society is not a campaigning organization. It failed to protect us on exclusive franchising, and has totally failed to oppose QASA - the "quality" assessment of advocates. Messrs. Fluck and Hudson should acknowledge that they have no authority and leave it to those who do.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Law Society haven't just let down criminal solicitors - civil practitioners (family, prison, immigration lawyers) were in a similar situation last year.

    The leaders at TLS apparently have salaries nudging £400,000 pa (plus benefits) - how many of their membership can claim to enjoy the same?

    For Des Hudson to suggest that he has secured the best deal for Criminal Lawyers is to support the MOJ in the worst possible way, it also stabs the Bar in the back.

    TLS are only interested in the big boys, be that the Big Firms Group or the City elite yet all the while taking money from cash strapped legal aid firms with one hand whilst ironically waving the white flag of surrender with the other. I would have preferred that they had done nothing, as their involvement is being used against us at every turn.

    All solicitors need to unite behind this motion and at the same time cease the city salaries of TLS hierarchy - who had no mandate to do what they did and who have studiously worked against the majority of those they purport to represent, whilst condescendingly holding "roadshows",writing articles and publishing documents which purport to justify their deceit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Des Hudsons pay 2 years ago http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/row-erupts-over-law-society-bosss-400000-pay-2149715.html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Get over yourselves, seriously. If you don't like legal aid rates, don't do legal aid work.

    It's a free country, in case you haven't heard.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous, if only we could still be paid the same legal aid rates that we have been paid for the last 16 years. This is not about increase or the low rates on offer.

    The law society agreed to 40% of legal aid work being removed from firms overnight, if they do not get a "duty contract";without consulting its members.

    It also gave assurances not to negotiate with the MOJ without involving practitioner groups including the CBA. It went behind those assurances and some feel sold firms down the river.

    Constructive engagement does not lead to the destroying of over 1000 firms out of the 1600 doing this work. It is for that reason the vote needs to be held. You do not agree to wiping out over 1000 firms and then tell those firms and staff we were acting in your best interests why can you not see it!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A lot of us will have no option, anon, mate. But you won't be afraid of a bit of competition, will you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (10)