Legal fees not excessive

Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Contributor

Our prime minister's use of the parliamentary platform to comment on proposed fees in a particular case is indeed unfortunate, as once again he runs the risk of blurring the lines between Government and party.

As party leader, Mr Golding is rightly concerned about the financial obligations of his members, even those who have run afoul of the law. As leader of the nation, his concern must transcend partisan interest.

Legal fees are negotiated on the basis of the free market, as well as the prohibition against lawyers charging unconscionable rates. A fee that is excessive or unjustified will be reduced by the court on examination. Additionally, a lawyer may be hauled before the disciplinary body for insisting on unconscionable fees.

In the case that Mr Golding seems to have been concerned about, the proposed lawyer's fee had not been pronounced upon by the court, which can approve or reduce the fees proposed. To have jumped in at this stage could also give the impression that he is usurping the court's function.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

The ability to afford a lawyer is indeed an issue of access to justice, but this is only one aspect. The Government, through its many organisations and branches, ought to give primacy and immediate attention to the several matters within its direct control that would undoubtedly increase ordinary citizens' access to an efficient, effective and equitable court system. By way of example:

1. The paltry sum now paid to lawyers for legal aid should be significantly increased. It is way below that which is paid in any other Commonwealth country. The flat fee, ranging between $15,000 and $60,000 to do a case which sometimes involves more than 15 court appearances, not including trials, which may last more than five days and as much as three weeks, ought to be significantly increased. There is a cadre of lawyers who, despite the inadequacy, render selfless service day in, day out. Yet I have never heard the prime minister make any public statement in Parliament or elsewhere recognising these acts of patriotism and contribution to stability and democracy. Further, legal aid ought to be extended to other cases, including family-law cases, particularly those affecting children.

2. The length of time cases take to be completed and the multiplicity of adjournments are now legendary in this country. They increase legal fees, waste judicial resources and often cause lawyers to operate at a loss. Sometimes, as in the case engaging the prime minister, it is due to parties not making early and full disclosure to the court, but there are many steps that the Government can take that would expedite the court process, give individual citizens additional access to the courts, and, ultimately, greater access to justice. For example:

a) Discontinue cases brought on behalf of government agencies which linger in the courts for years.

b) Ensure that judges have the basic refe-rence materials such as case reports, laws and other references to facilitate early delivery of decisions.

c) Equip the courts with working and fully maintained fax machines, computers, Internet access, etc.

d) Ensure an adequate number of judges, administrative staff and sufficient accommodation and facilities.

e) Ensure that all courthouses open to the public by 8:30 a.m. each day.

f) Increase financial support for the Office of the Children's Advocate and the Child Development Agency to ensure more comprehensive representation and support services for children involved in or affected by litigation.

g) Change the law so that persons who wish to take action against hospitals or government departments have easy access to their dockets and files, and liberalise the Access to Information Act.

h) Introduce laws to allow acquitted defendants to recover their reasonable legal costs.

i) Take the necessary steps to strengthen the police force's investigative capacity.

In the meantime, I pose for consideration the following questions:

1. Has the prime minister ever taken the time out to consider and acknowledge lawyers' value in upholding the Constitution and this democracy?

2. Do lawyers who represent the Government tax their bills for legal costs at a rate below what the court considers reasonable?

3. To what extent do frequent and multiple adjournments of court cases result in increased costs to ordinary citizens and the State?

It is easy and, no doubt, tempting to inflame the public against lawyers who people love and love to hate. But I must respectfully say that is it irresponsible and unfair to make statements that radiate more heat than light on a subject of great importance to our democracy.

Jacqueline Samuels-Brown is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.