Solicitors lash out: The Criminal Bar Association 'no longer holds views of its members'

A war of words has begun between the leaders of the criminal law practitioner groups and the criminal Bar, with the latter being told it no longer represents the views of its members.

An open letter from leaders of the two major criminal solicitor groups has condemned today's decision taken by the Criminal Bar Association not to take direct action against government cuts to legal aid fees and dual contracting.

Writing to CBA chairman Tony Cross, the president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association (LCCSA), Jonathan Black, and chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA), Bill Waddington, highlighted the hypocrisy of the latest Bar vote when comparing it to an earlier deal struck between barristers and former Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling in 2014.

'It is our understanding that the majority of your members who voted are in favour of action following your recent survey. Whilst I appreciate only a third of members voted, you will recall that it was only a similar number who voted when you held a ballot as to whether to accept the deal in March 2014 and you felt then that you had a sufficient mandate to accept the deal,' stated the letter.

The LCCSA and CLSA continued: 'We have had contact from many barristers in favour of protest and working closely with solicitors. We no longer consider that the CBA executive reflect the views of the majority of barristers and therefore we intend to liaise directly with those members of the Bar who have expressed grave concerns and share similar views to our own.'

The two leaders also questioned the CBA's understanding of the impact of legal aid cuts on all criminal practitioners, solicitors and barristers alike.

'We have previously made it clear to you and we wish to emphasise that our ballot is in relation to stopping the second cut, the duty contract scheme, and the third cut which will follow in January if the duty contracts commence. Unless you know something we do not, the aforementioned process will be a disaster for us all.'

Black and Waddington conclude by saying that it was unfortunate that Cross did not continue with the 'open dialogue we had put in place with the best interests of both sides of the profession in mind'.