Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps Online Survey not very User-Friendly to us Non Lawyers unless you are in the know or are aware

  1. DO  YOU AGREE WITH THIS MODIFIED MODEL Y/N     NOReducing the number of Suppliers will drastically slash the ability of people to access Legal Representation which goes against The Rule of Law.
    MOJ 40% Fee Slashing means that the Legal Profession has enormous difficulties in retaining/attracting Talent. It also has adversely affected the Profession in that they are unable to enjoy the normal Work-Pay dynamic as the LAA and Sols firms are so bad at paying The Bar.
  2. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE METHOD OF PROCUREMENT UNDER MODIFIED MODEL Y/N REASONS  Procurement  Areas are too large and reduce access to the Public this is against the Rule of Law where the richest and poorest have access to Justice.
  3. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE METHODOLOGY FOR DUTY PROVIDER WORK Y/N NOThe Methodology is flawed. The MOJ has not consulted with the Legal Profession despite repeated attempts by The Criminal Bar Association  by Michael Turner QC to engage with the MOJ.
    The MOJ is not in a position to present a Modified Model since it has consistent avoided the Legal Profession where it would have had an opportunity to create Models that satisfy the MOJ desire to save money (wasted monies in court system, interps contracts etc)
  4. Do you agree with the proposed remuneration mechanisms under the modified model? Y/N NO  The MOJ has not dealt with the LAA in making sure Lawyers are paid on time and in a timely manner.  The above does not even acknowledge that there are problems with the Work-Pay dynamic other Professions enjoy-but not the Law.
  5. Do you agree with the proposed interim fee reduction for all classes of work in scope of the 2010 Standard Crime Contract (except Associated Civil Work)?
    Y/N  No the Profession can take no more cuts. Fees already cut to the bone to the extent of hemorrhaging of Talent and disincentivised  Legal Aid Lawyers.
  6. 6.Which approach do you favour in terms of reforming the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme? NEITHER BOTH HARM CRIMINAL ADVOCACY AND BOTH SCHEMES ARE NOT BASED ON CONSULTATION WITH THE BAR ON THE MATTERS OF ADVOCACY.
  7. Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range of impacts under the proposals set out in this consultation? Y/N
  8. THE MOJ HAS NOT CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THE RANGE OF IMPACTS THE PROPOSALS WILL HAVE ON THE CJS. No the MOJ has not correctly identified extent of impacts. Sends doc back to Pupil to do again.
  9. No mitigation because MOJ has not put itself in a position where it could compose a  Consultation that consults with the Legal Profession it claims to serve.

Do you agree that we have correctly identified the extent of impacts under these proposals?

  1. Option 1 (revised harmonisation and tapering proposal)
    Option 2 (the modified CPS advocacy fee scheme model)

    Please give reasons: BOTH ARE RUBBISH AND HARM CRIMINAL ADVOCACY
This entry was posted in criminal defence lawyers, MOJ Consultations, NON LAWYERS, Save UK Justice Campaign and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps Online Survey not very User-Friendly to us Non Lawyers unless you are in the know or are aware

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s