A Concerned Criminal Defence Attorney writes: Recent comments concerning the shortage of criminal defence attorneys in the Cayman Islands were both welcome and concerning. At the recent Grand Court Opening, the Chief Justice observed that “the courts continue to face challenges in getting their work done because there remain so few practitioners relative to the number of cases before the courts”.
She further remarked that there are times when it appears there are more lawyers employed as Crown Counsel than there are practising at the criminal defence bar.
Those observations reflect the reality experienced daily by criminal defence firms.
The issue is not that criminal law lacks importance. Quite the opposite. Criminal defence attorneys are an essential safeguard against the misuse of state power and a fundamental component of a fair and effective justice system. The difficulty is that criminal defence practice has become increasingly difficult to sustain economically.
The statistics are telling. In 2024, 139 indictments were filed in the Grand Court, and a record 513 legal aid applications were made, the vast majority arising from criminal cases. One major trial occupied approximately three and a half months of court time and required four senior defence attorneys. Meanwhile, delays continue to affect both the Grand Court and Summary Court, with inevitable consequences for victims, defendants, witnesses, and public confidence in the administration of justice.
The reasons are not difficult to identify. Young Caymanian lawyers are understandably attracted to areas of practice offering higher compensation, greater resources, structured training, and clearer opportunities for career advancement. Criminal defence work, by contrast, often involves long hours, urgent hearings, prison visits, substantial responsibility, and legal aid rates that frequently bear little resemblance to the time and expertise required.
The result is a shrinking pool of practitioners and an insufficient pipeline of new attorneys entering the field.
Where suitably qualified Caymanian lawyers cannot be recruited, firms must inevitably look overseas. Yet work permit fees, admission costs, repatriation obligations, practising certificate fees, and related expenses create a significant financial burden for small criminal defence practices operating largely on legal aid work.
What makes this particularly difficult is that government-employed criminal lawyers do not face the same costs. Attorneys recruited from overseas to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are exempt from work permit fees, while private defence firms must bear those expenses themselves. The result is an obvious imbalance. It is often easier and less costly to recruit prosecutors than defence attorneys.
A healthy criminal justice system requires both.
This is not an argument against protecting Caymanian opportunities. Caymanians should always be trained, encouraged, and supported to enter criminal practice. Priority must always be given to Caymanians without exception. However, where a genuine shortage exists, public policy should not impose barriers that make recruitment even more difficult and thereby create further pressures on the system.
If government is serious about reducing delays and improving access to justice, practical reforms are required. Consideration should be given to reduced work permit fees for criminal defence attorneys, financial incentives for firms undertaking substantial legal aid work, and a review of legal aid rates to ensure criminal defence practice remains financially sustainable.
The recently established Criminal Bar Defence Association is a welcome development, but no professional organisation can solve a structural funding problem on its own.
Unless meaningful action follows the recognition of the problem, the outcome is entirely predictable. The shortage will continue, delays will continue, and both victims and defendants will continue to wait far too long for justice.
