A JUDICIAL REVIEW should not cause the justice minister to delay “meaningful engagement” with striking solicitors, the Law Society has argued amid concerns for disruption in the new legal year.

The Law Society remains “deeply disappointed” that minister Jim O’Callaghan has rejected a proposal for an independent mediator to resolve a dispute over criminal legal aid fees in the District Court.

O’Callaghan replaced a per-appearance fee with a flat rate in July, prompting hundreds of solicitors to withdraw their services in protest over the move.

Solicitors are engaged in a strike over the new flat-fee payment model, which sees them receive a fee of €520 per legal aid client regardless of how many court appearances or how many different charges are brought with the client.

Their withdrawal has resulted in widespread delays in proceedings, including sentencing for people convicted of crimes such as assault, sexual assault and violent disorder.

In a letter to the minister this week, Law Society president Rosemarie Loftus renewed a call for a mediator to deal with the dispute and said the new measures were based on a “fundamental misunderstanding of how the District Court operates”.

She said “court users have experienced severe disruption” during the dispute and “the number of legal aid certificates granted has collapsed”.

She also called for greater transparency on the data being used to justify the reforms.

The letter came ahead of the formal opening of the new legal year on Monday.

Loftus said: “We believe that meaningful discussions must take place in advance of that date to help ensure the effective functioning of the courts upon their return.”

O’Callaghan previously dismissed a request for the appointment of an independent mediator, citing that he is awaiting a judicial review judgment in relation to the dispute on 13 October.

However, Loftus argues that the State should endeavour to avoid proceedings where possible and consider alternative dispute resolutions:

“We do not believe that the forthcoming judgment on a judicial review case is reason to delay meaningful engagement and there is no legal impediment to this.”

The judicial review is examining the legality of the reforms, but critics of the new scheme argue this alone would not be a benchmark for its appropriateness.

Loftus said the impact of the reforms is “already evident with delays and growing backlogs” amid the withdrawal of service, arguing similar civil legal aid reforms show the “longer-term consequences” will be the loss of practitioners.

She said: “The Law Society and practitioners’ concerns have centred on the fact that the new scheme takes a one-size-fits-all, uniform approach.

“It is especially problematic as it has no regard to the complexity of cases coming before the courts.

“We believe the new scheme is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the District Court operates.

“It prioritises administrative efficiencies over fairness and your correspondence continues to focus also on ‘administrative simplicity’ over access to justice.”

O’Callaghan has pointed to the issuing of “almost 2,200” certificates since the revised scheme came into effect as evidence the courts are running effectively, equating to €1.14 million.

He said more than a quarter of the cases where certificates were granted have already been disposed, with more than 75% of those concluding in a single court appearance, attracting the full new fee of 520 euro for that appearance.

He said 99% concluded within five appearances, adding that early indications suggest the system is achieving one of its objectives.

Loftus argues there is a “lack of clarity and transparency” around the data and how it is utilised to assess the scheme, adding: “Our repeated efforts to access this data have been unsuccessful.”

The Law Society has said the issuing of certificates decreased by 93% and 86% in July and August, reflecting a reduction in the order of thousands.

A spokesperson for the Minister said there were currently more than 600 solicitors on the criminal legal aid Panel, with 24 having “reapplied to join recently” and four since the reforms were introduced.

O’Callaghan has said the reforms will be kept under review as he indicated the possibility of considering modifications to reflect the distinct nature of cases that may require a large number of hearings.

The Department said analysis of the old system showed cases with criminal legal aid took an average of 313 calendar days to complete, compared to 133 days for cases without, with the reforms designed to improve efficiency, reduce adjournments and speed up resolutions.

Critics argue that the reforms do not reflect that many adjournments originate on the prosecution side.