Solicitor Advocates’ body criticises SLAB code proposals as ‘crude’ and ‘discriminatory

The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s Criminal Code of Practice consultation asks whether solicitors providing criminal legal aid assistance should be expected to conduct a minimum number of cases in any one practising certificate year, to which the Society of Solicitor Advocates (SSA) responded “no”.

In its response the SSA states that a minimum case approach is a “crude method of seeking to establish relevant ability”.

It adds that “In terms of ability to deliver Criminal Legal Assistance (“CLA”), a number of factors will be relevant beyond from a simple numerical requirement. The extent of prior experience is relevant - a very experienced solicitor may well conduct fewer cases as his/her career progresses and yet still be fully capable of competent delivery of CLA.”

The response also notes that CPD is an “obvious means of refreshing knowledge” and states that solicitor advocates undertaking cases at the High Court, though involved in fewer cases overall, are doing work which is “significantly more demanding” and which ensures they are “wholly competent for any summary or solemn sheriff court cases”.

The SSA’s response also took issue with the draft code’s proposal that its requirements should apply to solicitor advocates “even when they are exercising their extended rights of audience”.

It states that “No explanation or justification is offered” for a provision involving the completion of timesheets by solicitor advocates.

“Where solicitor advocates appear before the High Court of Justiciary, they are clearly exercising their extended rights of audience. They work, and are paid, in precisely the same way as members of the Faculty of Advocates, as is entirely appropriate given the identical nature of the work done,” the response argues.

It adds: “As the fees for counsel (solicitor advocate or advocate), are paid in blocks according to the detailed Schedule in the Criminal Legal Aid Fees Regulations 1989, it seems to us that there is no basis for any differentiation in approach to the regulation of the two types of counsel by means of a Code of Practice or otherwise. Such provision would be discriminatory and unjustified.”