An Unfortunate Proposal to Encourage Plea Bargaining Early and Often


The UK Ministry of Justice is proposing to save £220 million (approximately $351 million) by paying lawyers so that they will receive more money if they plead their clients guilty early in their criminal case, rather than waiting longer or going to trial. 

According to the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, there are situations under this budget proposal where a lawyer who enters a quick guilty plea for their client  could earn a 75% fee increase.

As one British solicitor commented, “”By law, we’re already obliged to advise our clients about the benefits of an early guilty plea, by way of credit on their sentence … It doesn’t take a legal background – or criminal record – to realize that these incentives for a guilty plea and disincentives for a trial are an affront to justice.”  British lawyers are protesting these proposed changes.

Many parts of the United States already have such a system in place for indigent defendants, although it is not as overt.  Instead of offering to pay defense lawyers more to plead a case guilty early in the process, the possible rate of pay is set low and a cap is put how much an appointed lawyer can receive for each case, regardless of whether it goes to trial or not.  The practical result of such a system is that lawyers are financially penalized for taking cases to trial.  This is even more of a concern where the caps are set so low that lawyers who go to trial do so at their financial peril.  One study found that twenty states use flat fee structures (see here  and for some examples of poor pay see here). 

It is unfortunate to see a proposal such as this coming from the UK considering the strong British tradition of guaranteeing the right to a lawyer in criminal cases. I have worked with many British lawyers over the years and have been consistently impressed with their high levels of professionalism.  I can only hope that professionalism will prevail and this proposal won’t be adopted.

For an article from the Guardian about the proposed changes and reactions see here .

4 thoughts on “An Unfortunate Proposal to Encourage Plea Bargaining Early and Often”

  1. I am 100% opposed to this measure. The credibility of the criminal justice system hinges almost entirely on the ‘appearance’ of an impartial process. If local attorneys are being paid to plea bargain, then obviously the local attorneys have a financial incentive to act contrary to what may be in their client’s best interest.

  2. I would have to agree with the last comment. This incentive system is something that destroys the fabric of the legal system. A defendant in a criminal trial hires a defense attorney for the reasons of protection and getting a fair trial. There is nothing fair about giving an incentive to speed up the process or possibly not take the best interests of a client into account before getting in front of a judge.

  3. They wish to stream line the process and alleviate the strain on the courts. In the U.S. close to 97% of cases plea-out. At the end of the day the client has a choice to make and it is out of the lawyers hands. The lawyer can persuade the client and for many plea-deals this persuasion is necessary to mitigate the damage a jury trial could cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *