Yes Mr Freeman because that sum represents my entire business income with which to pay overheads, collosal insurance charges staff salaries and (in the unlikely event that there is anything left) feed my own family. My plumber (no word of a lie) who has to provide only a van and his tools charges more. And he did not have to study for six years with little or no money coming in for the pleasure of doing so.
THAT is why so many of us are thinking of quitting at a time when there is a record number of criminal statutes and a record number of offences that can deprive a person of their liberty.
I just hope that you never need one of us!

Graham Pressler, Scunthorpe, England

the DCA select committee is hearing evidence in public about the future of legal aid and that process is a stark contrast to the secret ,behind closed doors approach of Carter.The DCA says solicitor action is "unecessary and irresponsible" ;these are exactly the words we would choose to describe the current Carter and LSC proposals.What is unfolding is nothing to do with modernisation ,or introducing the market ,it is only about money and cuts.The government is pushing the legal aid system over a cliff and ignores our warnings,what should we do ,jump?greg powell president london criminal courts solicitors association

greg powell, london, uk

Lawyers are mostly all dishonest in comparison to what the public term as being the meaning of the word truth.

A lawyer's version of truth is not the publics version.

We should abolish MP'S, Courts of Law and Lawyers, they are a total waste of tax payers money and furthermore, I recall a Master at the High Court once saying to me ''Law is not about truth or your rights, it is about how good you are at being dishonest.''

Judges are out of touch and so are lawyers, I am fed up with paying tax to fund their luxury life styles, there is no truth and there are no rights for the public in UK law.

Let them strike, it will save the tax payer some money.

Ann Deek, London, UK

As a practising Family practioner I must say that I find the comment accusing us of beeing greedy quacks extremely offensive . It is unfortunate that there are a few very high earning general practitioners rather like the City solicitors with their high earnings which are multiples of what any general pratitioner could ever dream of earning

Tim, Nailsea,

Like many legal aid lawyers I am seething with anger. My colleagues in the commercial sector can look for fees based on £300 per hour or more and we are expected to survive on little more than 15% of that.....EXPECTED TO "SURVIVE" ON MORE THAN £45.00 AN HOUR!!

TERRY FREEMAN, LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND

Duty solicitors presently make about £35-40k after 7 years' education and qualification. For that they work a difficult 50+ hour week and have to cope with a Government intent on increasing legislation and a public ignorant of the work they do. The small private firms running criminal defence are easily more efficient than the public courts service, CPS, police, customs and indeed their regulatory body the Legal Services Commission.

Like most criminal practitioners, I now want an immediate walk out before we all go bust and the servise we provide is dumbed down. The irony in a Government, Law Society and LSC stacked with psuedo 'Human Rights' QC's and Lords enforcing this has not been unoticed.

I am also disgusted by the lack of support and guidance from the Law Society which has proven itself to be pointless to us. There are real moves to create a separate body to which we should be answerable.

Criminal law is like an A&E ward - you don't realise how bad it is until you have to use it. We should fight for our profession or ship out and let it become another Governmental department devoid of commitment.

Steve Law, Bermondsey, England

I am not a legal aid solicitor, but for a while I did a form of legal aid work called "green form" work. It was a nightmare. You were paid at less than half your hourly rate and the scheme limited you to a maximum of two hours work, although frequently I would do three or four hours work to ensure a good job for the clients. I would then submit a form making it clear that I had done three or four hours work. The legal aid board would sent it back and they always arbitrarily refused to pay £5 of the fee claimed (around 7% of the fee), without giving a reason. There was an appeal, but the legal aid board knew it wouldn't be worth my time appealing.

I would stop being a lawyer altogether rather than do legal aid work. This whole smokescreen of 'fat cat lawyers' that the DCA use to suit their ends is disgusting. The well off lawyers are the ones that left legal aid behind years ago.

I feel extremely sorry for my colleagues who do legal aid work, and I can fully understand their actions.

Neil, Hull,

I have acted as an out of office clerk for 9 years working closely with Solicitors and assisting counsel at court in many cases. I am in my final year of a law degree. The clerking facility will simply go removing a valuable facility not only for the legal professionals but more importantly the client who sometimes understands little about the judicial system. The changes also mean that chaos is lurking where by the paper work involved ,not to mention the detailed information that has to be provided by the prospective client, will be disruptive and hinder the basic procedural elements of representation. In my view these changes simply tamper with the structural base of the justice system. I am lucky in that I have worked along side excellent practitioners who adhere to the ethics and professional standards expected of them. Some clients do not always appreciate the levels of commitment applied by their representation. However most certainly do. Nevertheless it is for the legal team too get things done. I support such an action.

Garry Roost, London, England

Like many legal aid lawyers I am seething with anger. My colleagues in the commercial sector can look for fees based on £300 per hour or more and we are expected to survive on little more than 15% of that. As with many dedicated professionals in healthcare and social work we can hardly be seen as in it for the money and consequently we are treated with contempt. About 95% of work takes a little over 50% if the budget. We are being squeezed dry; at the same time as the Government periodically increases the minimum wage that we cannot afford for our own employees. The Department for Constitutional Affairs then has the affrontry to call our protest action 'irresponsible'. We provide a remarkably good service on a shoestring budget that is constantly eroded and we are repeatedly being asked to provide more for less. The policy decision is to reduce solicitor numbers and WE are threatened with action under the Competition Act for raising our voices. Enough is enough. And that, Mr O'Neill from Falmouth is why so many of us are leaving and why, when you may well need a solicitor yourself, you'll be high and dry and left to padle your own canoe!

Graham Pressler, Scunthorpe, England

D O'Neill of Falmouth is either a Police Officer or just another example of the ill-informed commenting on the criminal justice system.

The vast majority of people processed by the Courts do not have money. So if there was not legal aid, how would one be paid. Police Officers, the CPS Judges, Probation etcetc are all funded by the State. Legal aid is the same principle yet ensuring independence.
As to fees: SOLICITORS ARE PAID FIXED FEES. The longer a case goes on the less profitable the case is. Most adjournments are because the police, the CPS and the Courts cannot get their act together.
Clients are told by Court Legal Advisers and Solicitors that an early guilty plea attracts greater discount and results in less costs. I doubt there are many defendants happy to withhold plea and increase the punishment and costs just so their solicitor can supposedly make a bit more money.
Most cracked trials result from the CPS accepting a plea to a lesser charge or they accept the Defendant's version of events.
Every citizen of the UK should have to sit in Court for 1 week before being allowed to vote or comment upon legal aid and criminal justice as most comments upon the system are based upon inaccurate information, prejudice or just plain "lawyer-bashing".

Michael Robinson, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

It means that clients will be represented by people who are more interested in keeping the Legal Aid Board happy than their clients. It means that there won't be much justice. Look at the state of the NHS since it has been made virtually impossible to sue the greedy quacks who run it: 100 people a week dying because they can't be bothered to wash their hands. The upshot of this will be more men dying in police cells, more innocent men locked up for years for being fitted up and no rights at all.

What value the Human Rights Act if the rights are unenforceable.

Fair enough some solicitors manipulate the system, but not many, this is a myth propagated by policemen who blame them for their own incompetence.

Ivor Griffiths, Lancaster,

I hope they bring the whole system to a grinding halt. They have no alternative but to take the action they propose. The government is determined to ride roughshod over the basic principles of criminal justice and anyone who cares about them should support the action. The proposed changes to the legal aid scheme are but one example of the determination of the government to wreck the balance between the citizen and the State.

A quick look at the new Criminal Procedure Rules will show the stated 'principle' to be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Blair quoted this in the Commons the other day. To someone who has not considered the consequences of this it may appear reasonable, but what dangerous rubbish. In truth the proper function of the rules should be, to quote Lord Devlin, ' to ensure those who may not be guilty are not convicted'. A very different proposition. This is the bedrock of our system and the goverment are only too keen to destroy it.

roger graham, worthing, west sussex

Like many legal aid lawyers I am seething with anger. My colleagues in the commercial sector can look for fees based on £300 per hour or more and we are expected to survive on little more than 15% of that. As with many dedicated professionals in healthcare and social work we can hardly be seen as in it for the money and consequently we are treated with contempt. About 95% of work takes a little over 50% if the budget. We are being squeezed dry at the same time as the Government paeriodically increases the minimum wage that we cannot afford. The Legal Services Commission then has the affrontry to call our protest action 'irresponsible'. We provide a remarkably good service on a shoestring budget that is constantly eroded and we are repeatedly being asked to provide more for less. The policy decision is to reduce solicitor numbers and WE are threatened with action under the Competition Act for raising our voices. Enough is enough.

graham pressler, scunthorpe, england

I have acted as an out of office clerk for 9 years working closely with Solicitors and assisting counsel at court in many cases. I am in my final year of a law degree. The clerking facility will simply go removing a valuable facility not only for the legal professionals but more importantly the client who sometimes understands little about the judicial system. The changes also mean that chaos is lurking where by the paper work involved ,not to mention the detailed information that has to be provided by the prospective client, will be disruptive and hinder the basic procedural elements of representation. In my view these changes simply tamper with the structural base of the justice system I am lucky in that I have worked along side excellent practitioners who adhere to the ethics and professional standards expected of them. Some clients do not always appreciate the levels of commitment applied by their representation. However most certainly do. Nevertheless it is for the legal team too get things done. I support such an action.

Garry Roost, London, England

Just get on eith it, they make more money by holding out for last minute pleas, they ought to be ashamed of some of their sharp practices. It is about time that they are bought to account and earn their money through their work rather than reliant on the legal aid system which they manipulate to their own means.

D O'Neill, Falmouth,