LETTERS:High price of legal procedure
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Adrian A. S. Zuckerman Sir: The President of the Law Society and others (Letters, 14 January) took objection to your leader (12 January) in which you welcomed the Lord Chancellor's decision to limit legal aid funding, as ending "this legal pork barrel". While it is true, as your correspondents point out, that solicitors would now find it difficult to make ends meet, this state of affairs is the result of the practices pursued by the profession in the past.
Lawyers follow procedures largely devised by themselves. These procedures have developed with little concern for cost. Until relatively recently, Queen's Counsel was not allowed to appear in court without junior counsel at his elbow. And even now a barrister pleading in the High Court must have a solicitor sitting behind him, regardless of whether the latter has anything to contribute. Litigation procedures have become lengthy, complex and costly because lawyers have had an incentive to make them so; they are paid on an hourly basis regardless of success.
When lawyers are faced with cash limits while still expected to operate a cumbersome system needing large injections of cash, it is inevitable that they, and indeed their clients, should experience great difficulty. But is it right to blame the Treasury?
Should not the legal profession respond by pressing for procedures that are commensurate with what the country and clients can afford? After all, the £1.3bn that the taxpayer still contributes towards legal aid is not negligible.
Yours faithfully, ADRIAN ZUCKERMAN University College Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments