The Ministry of Justice has indicated that it is not likely to reconsider its criminal legal aid reforms after the Law Society’s decision to revoke support for the recent proposals.Following additional analysis of the government’s meetings and proposals alongside officials, Chancery Lane announced this week that the ministry had ‘botched’ its reply to the independent criminal legal aid review.Dominic Raab, Justice secretary has proclaimed that the government’s package coincides with the review’s central £135m suggestion. Critics including the Society maintain analysis of the consultation document and impact assessment shows it does not.As well as recounting the government’s words as ‘spin’, the Society suggested criminal defence practitioners to think ‘long and hard’ about whether they want to continue carrying out publicly funded work since it no longer considers the work to be economically feasible.In a statement this week, a spokesperson for the ministry commented: ‘We have accepted Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendation for an uplift in fees and our proposals will deliver an extra £135m a year in criminal legal aid – the biggest increase in a decade.‘This is alongside our ambitious proposals to ensure professionals are better paid for the work they carry out, boosting pay for lawyers representing suspects in police stations, magistrates’ court and youth court by 15% and funding the training and accreditation of solicitors and solicitor-advocates.’The ministry stated that it urged the legal sector to engage in its consultation ‘so we can guarantee this uplift will make the sector sustainable for the future as we build back a stronger and fairer society after the pandemic’.

A former judge at the International Criminal Court has been appointed by the attorney general to assist the Ukrainian government in investigating war crimes reportedly committed by Russia in Ukraine. Sir Howard Morrison QC will act as an independent adviser to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova.Called to the bar in 1977, Morrison was a circuit judge prior to his appointment to the International Criminal Court and the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He acted as a trial judge in the case of the former president of Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic, who was given life imprisonment for genocide.  Morrison’s latest appointment is funded by the Attorney General’s Office. Earlier this month, Suella Braverman QC, signed a joint statement of support with Ukraine’s prosecutor general, reinforcing the UK’s dedication to assisting the gathering of evidence of crimes which could include war crimes and crimes against humanity. Braverman stated:  ‘It has been a privilege to work with Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, my admiration for her courage and determination grows with every meeting. The UK is committed to showing that the atrocities we see being committed day after day in Ukraine will not be forgotten and that those giving or following illegal orders will be tracked down and held to account.’‘I am pleased to offer Sir Howard’s expert help and I will continue to do all I can as attorney general to support Ukraine’s journey to justice against Russia.’Venediktova commented: ‘Sir Howard’s experience and knowledge of international criminal law speaks louder than words and his help will be taken up immediately on a number of issues.’

A top family practitioner has requested the government to prolong a voucher scheme designed to support the use of mediation to settle family disputes outside of court, after referrals plummeted after the 2013 legal aid cuts.The Ministry of Justice launched the £1m voucher scheme last March, and it was extended with an additional £800,000 in August.A member of the Law Society’s family law committee, Solicitor Jo O’Sullivan, informed a webinar this month that approximately 6,608 vouchers have been issued, and around 400 are left to hand out until the end of this month.‘There has been no word yet about an extension. We’re all hoping there will be an extension,’ she informed the webinar, hosted by co-parenting support service Our Family Wizard.The ministry confirmed that by 13 March, 6,850 families have benefited from the scheme and the department anticipates 7,000 will have used it by the end of the financial year. It has been suggested by Family Mediation Council survey data that 65% of separated parents reached a partial or whole agreement, and did not attend court. An additional 3% only needed to attend court to secure a consent order to formalise their agreement.An MoJ spokesperson stated: ‘We launched this scheme to spare more children and parents the stress of courtroom battles and are thrilled to see nearly 7,000 families have benefited from our vouchers. The popularity of the scheme has helped ease pressure on the courts and any announcements on funding will be made in due course.’Dominic Raab, Justice secretary has made apparent he hopes to see more family disputes resolved outside ofcourt.

The Ministry of Justice has refused to divulge whether senior ministers have conversed imposing sanctions on City law firms acting for Russian clients.Last week, Steve Reed MP, the shadow justice secretary, questioned Dominic Raab, lord chancellor, ‘whether he has had discussions with cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of sanctioning law firms working for Russian clients with cases in the English court system’.James Cartlidge MP, junior justice minister, responded on behalf of the MoJ, saying: ‘Discussions on sanctions remain ongoing, but it is an important aspect of the rule of law that individuals can access legal advice.’He said that lawyers who advise those subject to sanctions should acquire a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OSFI) and ‘operate under strict rules’, further noting: ‘There are severe penalties for breaches, including fines and potential imprisonment.‘Many UK law firms are taking a strong stance against the deplorable actions of Russia and those linked to Putin’s regime, including winding down operations in Russia, reviewing client lists and carefully considering new work.’Reed also questioned  Raab what conversation he has had with the chancellor of the exchequer or the OFSI ‘on the matter of law firms representing clients that are linked directly or indirectly to the Russian state with pending legal cases in the English judicial system’.In his reply, Cartlidge noted that MoJ officials are in ‘regular discussions’ with the OFSI and ‘other agencies and regulators to ensure the sanctions regime is adhered to in the legal services market’.He also mentioned Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance which prompted solicitors of their legal requirements and professional obligations.Cartlidge also added: ‘Legal sector regulators are coming together rapidly to look at what can be done to further improve the enforcement of the restrictions under the current sanction and anti-money laundering regime. They are already stepping up compliance monitoring and enforcement activity.’

In a critical report this week on the 2020 Coronavirus Act, MPs have recommended that the government should prepare for future emergencies with a draft legislation – and give to parliament to examine ahead of use.The process was criticised by the cross-party Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee because the act was passed two years ago, with a minimal parliamentary sitting time of just three days. However, the ‘take it or leave it’ nature of six-monthly votes to resume the act meant that MPs could not object to individual powers.It discovered that the draft Pandemic Flu Bill, on which the Coronavirus Act was based, never made public knowledge and did not receive any parliamentary inspection.The report also states that the government should have avoided issuing advice for Covid-19 restrictions which revoke legislation as it bypasses parliamentary scrutiny and results in confusion amongst the public and law enforcement.While understanding the government’s keynote that it is not possible to project what a future emergency may entail, it pushes the government ‘to look again at the possibility of introducing a piece or range of draft legislation to allow for prior scrutiny of plans before an emergency occurs’. William Wragg MP, the committee chair, stated: ‘It is unsatisfactory that since the Coronavirus Act was passed, in just three sitting days in March 2020, parliament has been unable to substantively debate its provisions as was promised during its passage. Strong and broad powers such as those in the act must be accompanied by equally robust parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms, particularly in a rapidly evolving public health emergency.’The report suggests that the proportionality and necessity of each of the powers in the Coronavirus Act be evaluated as part of the upcoming public inquiry. It requested the government to provide further detail on the timetable for the inquiry, emphasising it should be completed in a ‘timely manner’.

Despite the legal sector’s ‘unprecedented wage inflation’, recent research has revealed that one in five trainee solicitors in London receive below the recommended minimum salary. According to Douglas Scott Legal Recruitment, 20% of trainees who work in the capital receive less than the recommended minimum annual salary of £22,794.With the average shortfall increasing from £2,816 last year to £2,914, the number of trainees in London who are paid less than the recommended wage remained the same as in 2021, when it was also 20%.However, it was found by Douglas Scott that the circumstances for trainees who work outside of London has ‘improved significantly’, with 16% earning less than the suggested minimum of £20,217 compared with 25% in 2021. The average deficit in pay for trainees working outside of the capital similarly dropped from £2,638 in 2021 to £1,452.Douglas Scott’s study revealed that on average, trainees in London were paid £34,930, an increase from £32,190 last year, whereas the regions average salary climbed from £23,300 to £26,336.It also discovered that pressures on trainees in London have risen, with junior lawyers in the capital working approximately 44 hours per week, compared with 41.5 hours per week in other regions.Associate director at Douglas Scott, Jonathan Nolan, stated: ‘The last 18 months or so, the demand for talent has resulted in salary increases across all practice areas and job types. Legal is no different from other business sectors in that respect. The main driver for the increase in pay for trainees living outside London is likely to be trickle down as opposed to altruism.‘Unfortunately, some of London’s law firms are failing to read the room, leaving many of its trainee solicitors living close to the breadline and I fear the next Law Society recommended increase, with inflation so high, will see many more fall below the threshold.’A compulsory minimum salary was previously set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, this was howeverscrapped in 2014 and the SRA now specifies that just trainees receive the national living wage.

Russia has refused to send representatives to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week, as Ukraine requested the court to bid Russia to promptly end its invasion and stop ‘crimes against humanity and war crimes’.Ukraine states Russia’s ‘full-scale, brutal invasion’ – expressed by Vladimir Putin as a ‘special military operation’ to avert genocide in eastern Ukraine – is revolved around ‘an absurd lie’, which turns the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ‘on its head’.‘Russia’s lie is all the more offensive, and ironic, because it appears that it is Russia planning acts of genocide in Ukraine,’ Ukraine’s lawyers reported to the court.The ICJ is being urged to put forward ‘provisional measures’, including demands for Russia to immediately cease its military efforts and announce that no acts of genocide, as claimed by Russia, have been actioned in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine.Joan E Donoghue, the court’s president Judge stated that Russia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Alexander Shulgin, has ‘indicated that his government did not intend to participate in the oral proceedings’. ‘The court regrets the non-appearance,’ she remarked.Ukraine’s representative, Anton Korynevich stated: ‘This is of course not the first time that Ukraine has experienced first-hand Russia’s disrespect for international law. Now the world understands the depth of its disrespect.’He further commented: ‘The fact that Russian seats are empty speaks loudly. They are not here in this court of law. They are on a battlefield waging aggressive war against my country.‘This is how Russia solves disputes, but Ukraine had another position and respects international law and this court of law. But, even still, Russia knows international law matters. Why else would Russia try to justify its aggression?’Korynevich remarked that Putin’s allegation of genocide is ‘a horrible lie’, expressing to the court: ‘Putin lies and Ukrainians, our citizens, die. It is not Ukraine who commits genocide – it is Russia and its political leadership and military personnel who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes.’The pressing hearing was expected to be heard from Russia’s representatives on Tuesday morning, althoughit concluded later this week with the court stating it will ‘render its order as soon as possible’ – but it appears unlikely that Russia would accept any orders set out by the ICJ.

International Women’s Day rapidly turned from a PR opportunity to a corporate ordeal on Tuesday, as firms were faced with the anger of a Twitter Bot.The Gender Pay Gap Bot (@PayGapApp) had a straightforward premise to quote the tweets of companies and organisations mentioning IWD on Twitter, and highlight their most recent salary gap between men and women.However, the outcome was an exposure of what some may suggest is the hypocrisy of praising the virtues of equality without putting it into practice. Some companies swiftly  deleted their original tweets, but this arguably worsened the situation.Multiple organisations were targeted, including several law firms such as Blake Morgan, Ashtons Legal, Browne Jacobson, DWF Law, White & Case, Mishcon de Reya and Shearman & Sterling. Each companytweeted references to IWD, and each were then revealed to have approximately a 20% hourly pay gap between men and women.Mishcon strongly opposed any suggestion of virtue signalling. We tweeted some statistics on female entrepreneurship,’ a spokesperson stated. However, despite the circumstances being fair or not, some firms will have detected a significant increase in their social media profile as a result. 

As HM Courts & Tribunals Service prepares to introduce a new regime designed to remove conflict from the legal process of separation, solicitors will be unable to apply for a divorce on behalf of their clients for one week, as of the end of this month.HM Courts & Tribunals Service has now confirmed that the ‘old service’ will be unavailable from 31 March, with a new system set to begin on 6 April.Applications saved on the current service will need to be submitted by 4pm on 31 March, and paper applications should be received by the court by the same time.From 31 March to 5 April, the digital service will not accept new applications. Practitioners will not be able to apply on the current paper or digital systems like before, or have access a saved digital application not yet issued by the court.However, HMCTS will carry on accepting urgent applications in which the issue of the divorce petition is pressed to time. Decree nisi and decree absolute applications that have been issued will be saved and continue to be available on the service.The new system pilots a new era of ‘no-fault’ divorce, taking away the ability to make allegations about aspouse’s conduct, and enable couples to end their marriage jointly.HMCTS confirmed that it has communicated with practitioners about the updated system, including focus groups, interviews, demonstrations and discussions to explain and test the upcoming changes and collect feedback.‘Since it was possible to submit applications for divorce online in 2018, followed by the whole process going online during 2019, we have found that a significant number of clients are comfortable handling the process themselves. The system is user-friendly and straightforward for simple divorces,’ Clyne stated.A partner in the family team at Fletcher Day, Caroline Ford, commented: ‘In circumstances under the present law, where a divorce petition uses unreasonable behaviour there is the cost to the client of drafting a list of unreasonable behaviours sufficient to convince a judge that there should be a divorce. This cost will be removed, resulting in the costs of divorce being less.‘The removal under the new law of the ability to defend the decision to divorce means that there will be no legal fees in connection with defended divorces. As a result of the new divorce law coming into force, Fletcher Day’s fees for divorce will be less than usual as the time it takes to draft the divorce petition is reduced.’