Justice System Reform Bill 2 2015

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm comfortable with such a title change.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't support Senator TNF's proposal, I believe we don't need to be making the Government do everything itself, we can work in partnership with other sectors.

Public defenders are those people who are engaged by the state to defend those in criminal matters who are unable to provide such defense for themselves.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The title was meant to be part of series of Bills to improve and reform the justice system. It might break the continuity ... Yet to see Bill 1

But if people are concerned, any suggestions for title changes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We could use some more clarification, particularly a definition for "legal defense projects".


Also, what was the criteria for selecting 75% in clause 5? It is still rather high no? What is the industry average for instance?

At the moment it's above 85%, closer to 90%.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

One of the known outcomes of the current over-worked public defense system is a marked increase in plea-deals. If someone is guilty that's one thing, but if they're taking a plea-deal because an over-worked public defender is recommending it, that's a big problem and it's a real one.

The suggestion was that a firm would undertake work of the equivalent of 25% of a full employee workload. So no, it's not a single employee.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree with the plea bargaining, I've read lots of things about poorer people existentially getting played by the legal system.

Would there be an issue with large firms getting a tax break here? I'm not 100% comfortable giving a multi-million pound law firm a tax break, but I could be wrong

Sure, that's the risk here, but it's a pragmatic approach. We're trying to create an incentive for the firms with the most capacity to become engaged in this format, hence why the reduction is tiered, with the smaller firms getting more. A lot of firms undertake pro-bono work, but it's not formalised and doesn't in any way deal with reducing the workload of our existing public defenders. If it means throwing a bone to successful firms, it doesn't really bother me. Especially since smaller firms tend to have less capacity to undertake these kinds of projects or have a more niche focus.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not sure that we want to be incentivize lawyers to pursue specific legal outcomes for their clients. Lawyers should work to get the best legal outcome possible for their clients, and many times that includes plea bargains.

Of course, but most recognise that the sheer scale of plea deals is not the advocate doing the best for the client, but the best outcome considering the public defense system being overwhelmed. If there's strong concerns about this, I'm happy to negotiate an alternative.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

TNF's proposal is obviously a TNF proposal, and I don't want to distract from the core of this, but can anyone explain to me why it's to our advantage as a nation to subject legal representation to market forces? Does it actually result in a more efficient allocation of legal resources, or do market failures dominate?

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from Mr Vice President. This proposal better utilises existing systems, business and expert knowledge to support a public defense system that is struggling and leads to worse outcomes for all involved.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Could the Senator provide a justification before I make a call on this amendment

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not sure that we want to be incentivize lawyers to pursue specific legal outcomes for their clients. Lawyers should work to get the best legal outcome possible for their clients, and many times that includes plea bargains.

Basically what Lief said earlier. While you have made the point (which I agree with) that the sheer scale of plea deals is not necessarily the advocate doing the best for the client, I don't think it's something quantifiable into the law.

Friendly.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Would Senator Polnut be open to an amendment that tries to get back his intention? I like the idea of giving an incentive, even more so for law firms to basically get the best offer for their clients. Perhaps a further tax credit or educational support for inner city law firms that help the poorest in society?

I'm open, but as Lief does correctly point out, there is a danger of quantifying the 'best interests' for clients, when each situation is different.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have been tied up with RL stuff for longer than planned. I'll be back on board tomorrow.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I'm comfortable with this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm comfortable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Motion for a final vote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm thrilled, thank you Senators