Royal Gazette conducted a review of the system in an effort to uncover problems and find solutions. This is the first article. The second appears on Monday. The Legal Aid system has come under fire by lawyers frustrated by the scheme -- but they urged Government not to "throw the baby out with the bath water''. Four lawyers spoke with The Royal Gazette and discussed their views of the problems within the Legal Aid scheme and possible solutions. Keren Lomas of Keren VP Lomas Associates criticised the Legal Aid system for its "inequity'' and "imbalance'' for the way in which access to representation is meted out. To be eligible for Legal Aid, the client must have a net disposable household income of less than $12,000 -- an amount which many attorneys who participated in the scheme criticised as being "completely out of date''. Lawyer Peter Farge stated: "The means test hasn't been increased since the 1980's -- they should've kept up with inflation at least -- but nothing has been changed so hardly anybody qualifies.'' Ms Lomas stated: "Even if the income is a little over the limit, exercise a bit of compassion -- and balance the need of curtailing the expenses for the taxpayer against the need of the individual taxpayer to get equal access to justice. And now the system is completely out of balance -- it's all about saving Government money and justifying the administrative costs of the system.'' Georgia Marshall of Marshall & Company suggested a graduating scale of eligibility, in which Legal Aid met a portion of the legal costs -- so that people slightly above the $12,000 income mark who still could not afford their own lawyer would still have access to legal services. Many of the attorneys who spoke with The Royal Gazette said the fees paid to the lawyers -- typically $100 per hour for office work and $110 for courtroom appearances -- were a deterrent since many lawyers can earn $300 per hour in private practice. Although the lawyers agreed that the Legal Aid committee paid attorney's fees in a more timely fashion than in past years, there was still room for improvement.

"It's extremely discouraging,'' said lawyer Phil Perinchief. "The rates are a third of private rates, and they still cut back.'' "The turnaround time had shortened, but it's still too long -- it lays a heavy penalty for small law firms,'' he added. And Ms Lomas said the disadvantages to the Legal Aid scheme cause many experienced attorneys not to get involved -- to the public's detriment. "If a legally assisted person cannot get senior counsel or someone who specialises in a particular area -- again, they're being denied equal access to justice.'' Several of the lawyers agreed the number of hours Legal Aid allotted for conducting a lawsuit were often not sufficient -- especially for resolving divorce and custody suits. Mrs. Marshall said she found the time limitations set by Legal Aid "completely distressing''. "It is completely impossible for an attorney to conduct a suit in the time allowed -- often as little as five hours -- granted by Legal Aid.'' She noted that it often takes more than five hours to complete the basic paperwork such as affidavits needed to properly assess and conduct the suit. "It often doesn't even cover overhead in a law practice, but many attorneys participate to fulfil their obligation to the community.'' "However, it puts the attorneys in a difficult position because once they've accepted the case and they're listed as the attorney of record, you must act entirely for your client's interests.'' She explained that although the case may require much more than the time allowed by Legal Aid, the attorneys are bound to continue with the suit regardless.

"Once you're the attorney of record, no one can pay you for the balance of this action which can drag on for a year.'' "You're doing it for free -- you can't just not show up to court -- and if you did, the client would have a good case for negligence.'' "What is the point of having a legal aid scheme if it doesn't work, if it doesn't allow attorneys to properly represent their clients?'' Mr. Perinchief echoed Mrs. Marshall's observations, calling the system "archaic'' and "unfair''. "Especially in litigation, unless you have the benefit of a crystal ball, you can't know in advance how long a case will take,'' said Mr. Perinchief. "I'm not suggesting open-ended certificates, but the Legal Aid system has to be more realistic.'' "It's as if they're expecting defence attorneys to offer their services completely pro bono -- the entire system really needs to be revamped,'' he added. Both Mr. Perinchief and Mrs. Marshall said the system should be adjusted to include input from the attorney to assist the Legal Aid committee in assessing the time needed to complete each case. "The problem would be hugely alleviated if upon receipt of the application, the attorney would be asked for a report about the amount of work required,'' said Mrs. Marshall. And Mrs. Marshall stated: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- there are many improvements that could be made to the Legal Aid system, but there has to be the commitment and willingness on the part of Government to do so.'' PHOTO Phil Perinchief Keren Lomas Peter Farge