fat cat lawyers

From the Guardian and George Monbiot

Kenneth Clarke's assault on civil legal aid is presented to the public as a blow against greedy lawyers milking the state. The Daily Mail, which knows the script to the letter, supports his proposed cuts by blasting the "fat-cat lawyers taking a fortune from hard-pressed taxpayers" and welcoming plans to slash their "multimillion-pound earnings". Don't we all hate them? The tax lawyers worming their way through loopholes to ensure their clients don't pay. The defamation lawyers silencing people who challenge the rich and powerful. The corporate lawyers twisting the arms of legislators. The well-padded barristers thronging the benches of the Palace of Westminster – (such as Kenneth Clarke.)

But legal-aid lawyers are not fat cats, but mangy strays. A legal-aid solicitor who has been on the job for several years earns, according to the Guardian's chart of public sector pay, an average of £25,000. That's a lot less than teachers, town planners, probation officers and social workers. Philip Turpin, who runs a firm of 60 people, takes home £42,000 a year. These aren't starvation wages, but they are a fraction of what partners in other areas of law are paid or almost anyone else at this level in either the public or private sector.

The consequence of this phoney war on fat cats is a massive empowerment of the real elites. Those who are no longer entitled to legal aid will find themselves fighting, single-handed, against landlords, insurance companies and the state any profession – structural engineers, surveyors, accountants, lawyers – that can be sued for negligence. The rich reap none of the pain and all of the gain.

John McNulty, who works for Turpin & Miller, gave me examples of cases he's working on which would no longer be eligible for legal aid. An elderly lady has just been evicted from her house because her son forged her signature for the transfer of her property and stole the money. She's now homeless. It looks like a case of negligence on the part of the conveyancing solicitors, who had an obligation to meet her and ensure that she knew what was happening. Her only hope of redress is to sue them. For that she needs a handwriting report, which costs £2,000. Today she can get one; when Clarke's reforms bite, such sloppy solicitors will walk away untouched. Who gains? Fat-cat lawyers of the kind these cuts were supposed to restrain.

A woman was beaten up by police outside a pub, who then claimed she had assaulted them. CCTV evidence shows her account was true and theirs was false. She can't launch proceedings without a CCTV footage report. Today legal aid will pay; when the green paper becomes law, it won't. Who gains? The police, whose abuse of power will meet even fewer impediments.

A prisoner was kept inside for 14 months after he should have been released, because the probation service lost his notes. Today he can get legal aid to pursue a compensation claim for this cock-up. After Clarke has savaged the system, he won't be eligible. Who gains? The incompetent bureaucrats who wrongly deprived a man of his liberty.

Clarke's reforms protect landlords who have illegally evicted their tenants. The cuts protect businesses and public bodies that unfairly sack their workers or fail to pay their wages, as they annul the free legal advice to which the workers are now entitled.

Throughout the government and the corporate press, the guardians of the status quo present themselves as kicking against the system, overthrowing accepted truths. But they wage war against one sector of the establishment only to the advantage of more powerful players. They rail against climate scientists, while defending the interests of big oil and big coal. They rant about doctors, to the benefit of companies that want a chunk of the health service. They lambast "health and safety Nazis", but not the careless corporations the inspectors try to restrain. And we keep falling for it.