This is the text of an open letter from the President of the Glasgow Bar Association discussing the Scottish Legal Aid Baord's proposals for the provision of Legal Advice to persons detained by the Police.



The Glasgow Bar Association have engaged in discussions with numerous solicitors throughout Scotland on the issue of the current proposals. These proposals are the brainchild of the Scottish Legal Aid Board whose Chief Executive, Lindsey Montgomery, must be considered the, “architect” or driving force behind the proposals.

The Glasgow Bar Association has earlier condemned the proposals as wholly unacceptable and more recently the Law Society of Scotland, in their letter of 9th June 2011 to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, stated various concerns the Society have over the absurd proposals being put forward by SLAB and Mr Montgomery. Cameron Ritchie, President of the Law Society of Scotland, in his letter specifically stated, “... we do not believe that this Scheme is either necessary or fit for purpose”. As a result of our various discussions around the country, which culminated in a meeting between members of the Glasgow Bar Association and the Hamilton Bar, yesterday evening [Tuesday], we consider now is the time for solicitors to be specific!

The Duty Scheme, due to come into force on 4th July 2011, requires to be staffed. The proposals currently seek to compel application to the Scheme if individual solicitors wish to be able to admit their clients to funding under Legal Aid Schemes. That in itself is outrageous. Do Mr Montgomery and SLAB (and the Government) truly expect solicitors to work through the night for absolutely no money? Apparently the answer is, “yes”. Even where a solicitor joins the Scheme, thus enabling his client to receive state funded advice, the money earned, other than during a few hours during the night, is, effectively, not paid if the case then proceeds to a court case in the Sheriff or JP Summary Courts. Legal Aid is then granted and the amount earned during the entirely separate and preliminary work at the Police Station is subsumed into the Legal Aid payment.

On 14th June 2011 the GBA, at the request of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, held a meeting for its members to allow the Board to further explain their position. The Board at that time, no doubt faced with a low number of applications to join the Scheme, sought to extend the previous deadline for signing up in the hope of attracting more applicants. As a PR exercise, we have to assume that the Board recognise their attendance on 14th June 2011 was an abject and dismal failure. When pressed with questions as to the actual detail of a Scheme that the Board have been working on for months, they were woefully short of answers. Simply repeating the content of their 4 page proposal answered very few of the very reasonable questions being put to them.

The meeting did however throw up one further particular matter of concern. As at that date it was confirmed that no PDSO solicitors had applied to join the Police Station Duty Scheme. It was also confirmed that individual solicitors require to sign up to the Scheme to be eligible to access Government funding for suspects. That being the case, and in light of Mr Montgomery’s previous declarations that the operation of the PDSO (paid for by SLAB) are, operationally, entirely independent from SLAB interference, it was alarming to note that the Board have a new position. In answer to the simple question of who would staff this ‘phone line if private solicitors do not sign up in sufficient quantities, the answer given was that the PDSO solicitors would do it. When it was pointed out that none of them had signed up for SLAB’s own Scheme the outrageous answer given was, “They are Board solicitors. They will do what they are told”. The GBA represent a variety of solicitors practising various areas of law and accordingly they currently and previously have represented PDSO solicitors over the years.

We consider that the Legal Aid Board’s position, as stated at that meeting must be something that the Chief Executive, Lindsey Montgomery, is both aware of and has sanctioned. If that were not the case then the Board solicitor who provided that information should be called to book for his outrageous comments.

The Glasgow Bar Association have recognised the difficult financial times recently and are already, in Glasgow’s jurisdiction, suffering the same financial cuts to Legal Aid as others throughout Scotland with the added cuts to Stipendiary cases in the Justice of the Peace courts in Glasgow alone. As a statement of principal we wish Mr Montgomery and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to know that the overwhelming and almost universal position now adopted by the Glasgow Bar Association and the other Associations and Faculties that have discussed matters with us, is that your Scheme and proposal is unacceptable!

The suggestion that suspects who name a solicitor will not be called by the police is unacceptable. We require reasonable payment for work done which, after all, is little different in nature to a GP a qualified professional) acting on Police instructions in attending someone in custody. Payment is made there and we see no reason for our profession to be treated in an entirely prejudicial and unacceptable manner. Where a payment is made for such work, it must not be subsumed into fees paid for some other entirely different area of work, thus rendering the whole process meaningless.

We make no apology for trying to earn a living. The funding levels that we are talking about are less than the average hourly rate paid for a mechanic or a plumber (and we only charge for labour, not parts!).

We call upon all solicitors who have refused to sign up to the Scheme or, more recently, who have resigned from the Scheme to stand firm in their refusal to accept the ridiculous proposals being made by Mr Montgomery and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

Yours sincerely




KENNETH J WADDELL
PRESIDENT, GBA