Bonfire of the quangos

Another review and another nail banged into the coffin of the Legal Services Commission (LSC).

Another review and another nail banged into the coffin of the Legal Services Commission (LSC). This time it is a damaging report from House of Commons’ public accounts committee which last week accused the LSC of “poor oversight” and “uncertainty and duplication” between its role and that of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Before Christmas another watchdog, the National Audit Office, blamed the beleaguered body for allowing lawyers to “exploit” legal aid and over-paying them £25m.

This provides the background for Sir Ian Magee’s review of the “delivery” of legal aid presently with ministers. It’s hard to resist the analysis that, if Labour doesn’t bin the LSC first, then should the Tories win the election, it will go straight on the top of their “bonfire of the quangos”.

So how should legal aid lawyers view the passing of an agency that has come to be their bête noire? “Scrapping the LSC” entails a number of possible outcomes.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Bonfire of the quangos

Another review and another nail banged into the coffin of the Legal Services Commission (LSC).

So how should legal aid lawyers view the passing of an agency that has come to be their bête noire? “Scrapping the LSC” entails a number of possible outcomes.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’

NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City

Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted

NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays

Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial

NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?

Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’

NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline

Error message

Bonfire of the quangos

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

DWF—Stephen Hickling