Bail decisions are largely shaped by private, out-of-court negotiations between Crown attorneys and defence lawyers. While accused persons rely on the professional expertise of defence lawyers to navigate bail negotiations and secure them the best possible outcome, much remains unknown about how lawyers prepare for and negotiate bail. This study examines the process of bail preparations and negotiations from the defence’s perspective based on data from 18 semi-structured interviews with defence lawyers. The findings show that, while defence lawyers argue for reasonable bail terms, their ultimate goal is to obtain a release for their client. Defence lawyers also prioritize collecting and strategically using information about the case and the Crowns and justices with whom they work. They often adopt a risk-averse and cooperative approach with Crowns to avoid delaying or preventing their client’s release, even if that means agreeing to additional conditions. Our findings inform efforts to reform bail processes.

This paper examines how continued reductions in fee levels for criminal legal aid work affect recruitment and retention in the English publicly funded criminal defence profession. Data from 29 qualitative interviews with English defence solicitors and barristers are analysed to explore the impact of these reductions on recruitment of new lawyers and retention of current lawyers. On the basis of these findings, also building on research conducted by lawyer professional associations, I argue that a combination of cuts to legal aid, the resulting working patterns and low morale has led to a position where the criminal defence profession, as we know it, is unsustainable.

Unlike Western common-law jurisdictions where plea bargaining has been acknowledged, official discourse in Hong Kong denies the existence of plea bargaining. However, defence lawyers are staunch supporters of its use behind the scenes. Using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Hong Kong criminal defence lawyers, it was found that lawyers’ justifications are based on four main grounds: it is non-coercive because the final decision is left to the accused; negotiations avoid the risks of trials; plea bargaining is a practical solution that is in the best interests of the client and the state; and the courts implicitly tolerate the practice. The findings can be explained by Eisenstein and Jacob’s (1991) courtroom workgroup model. The present study seeks to bridge the gap in the literature where plea bargaining has only been discussed predominately in the context of Western common-law jurisdictions.