They have contacted the JEP to make Islanders aware of the possible implications of a proposed new law to overhaul legal aid in Jersey.
The whistleblowers claim that even those on modest incomes could be charged tens of thousands of pounds despite being found not guilty – and that people could be put off contesting charges even though they are innocent because the punishment might be less than the lawyer’s bill.
On 26 June, the States are due to debate new Access to Justice laws, which include sweeping reforms of the legal-aid system and proposals to limit the money paid from the public purse to reimburse individuals who are found not guilty in public prosecutions.
Under the proposals the amount which would be paid in recovery costs to an acquitted defendant would be capped to the fixed-fees equivalent to those paid to a lawyer acting under legal aid – a system of discounted legal advice for lower income Islanders.
The JEP has been approached by a number of lawyers who say that the reforms could seriously damage the justice system.
The lawyers wish to remain anonymous because they say that speaking out could jeopardise their careers.
The move, they claim, could leave innocent defendants paying tens of thousands of pounds of surplus fees charged above the cap by their lawyers, unlike the present system where the vast majority of their costs are reimbursed.
They added that they feared that this could lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ [always looking for the cheapest option] when defendants search for legal advice and that the move, which has been driven by the Attorney General, is intended to reduce the outgoings of the Law Officers’ Department’s budget, from which recovery costs are paid.
Law Society chief executive Neville Benbow confirmed that the move could leave innocent defendants having to pay more.
‘Where the defendant is acquitted and they are paying for a private lawyer the Attorney General is proposing to limit their recovery costs to what would be paid to a lawyer, if they were doing it for legal aid,’ he said.
‘That could result in higher costs being incurred by the individual.’
A spokesman for the Attorney General said changes to the legal-aid system had still not been finalised.
‘The new legal-aid rules have not been made by the minister and there will be a consultation before they are made. This will take place later this year,’ he said.
Other concerns have also been raised with the JEP about the proposed reforms to the legal-aid system.
If approved, the ‘Tour de Rôle’ rota system – under which lawyers with 15 years or less experience are required to provide discounted legal advice – would be scrapped with a specialist panel of criminal practitioners overseen by the Judicial Greffe replacing it. Under this system, which has been a feature of Island life since the 18th century, lawyers in Jersey have provided free or reduced-cost legal assistance to those who do not have sufficient funds to access the Jersey legal system.
According to the The Law Society of Jersey, the Tour de Rôle (‘according to one’s turn’) is a rota system whereby Jersey advocates and solicitors ‘are obliged to take on clients appointed on a rota basis for 15 years following their qualification’.
It adds: ‘The nature of this means that a legally aided client does not have a choice of representation, which may result in them being allocated a lawyer who is a specialist in a different legal field; lawyers equally do not have a choice in respect of which cases are allocated to them. This position is not ideal for either party, but can only be addressed as part of reform of the legal-aid system.’
It is feared that the reforms, which would allow individuals greater choice over who represents them under the legal-aid system, could stifle the opportunities for younger lawyers to gain court experience, as clients would always seek to appoint more experienced counsel.
It has also been claimed that the change is being driven by large corporate law firms, who tend to focus on more profitable trust and company work and want to remove the legal-aid obligations of their junior practitioners.
Mr Benbow said that under the proposed new system a rota would still operate when a specialist from the panel was not available or selected.
‘I don’t think that it will lead to a depletion of legal experience,’ he said.
