Law Society sets out alternative to legal aid cuts
Banks would be forced to cover the cost of their own fraud cases under the Law Society’s alternative plans for legal aid.
Making the fi nancial sector pay its way could save the public purse £74m according to Law Society estimates. Introducing a single fee for crown court work could save £30m, while limiting the maximum any individual can earn through legal aid to the equivalent of the NHS earnings of a top surgeon could save £16m.
The Law Society claims the potential savings it has identifi ed would match the government’s £350m raid on legal aid, thus removing the need for cuts. It has launched a campaign at www. soundoff forjustice.org.
Other potential savings include funding legal costs from seized assets of defendants (£9m), greater use of wasted costs orders (£9m) and reforming prosecuting procedures around VHCCs (Very High Cost Cases) (£14m).
Law Society president Linda Lee said the government’s current proposals “will increase overall costs to the state as downstream costs arise when legal problems aff ecting ordinary people are unresolved”.
Lee said savings could be made across the justice system without harming legal aid or access to justice. Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioner’s Group (LAPG) has called on the government to re-think its plans.
In an open letter to the Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, published in last week’s NLJ, Storer said: “Th e proposals, which are estimated to have a cumulative impact of £395m– £440m on a budget of £2.1bn, will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable women, children, black and minority ethnic clients, and those living with disability and mental health problems. “By far the largest impact will be on family cases…the fear is that family members, especially children, will be put at risk.”
The Bar Council, in its response to the government’s green paper on legal aid, warned the cuts could cost more than they saved because of the extra burden on the court system and other government departments such as the Department of Health.
The Law Society has rejected Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on changes to civil costs because they “will prevent ordinary people seeking redress”.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
