header-logo header-logo

Campaign for early advice

28 November 2017
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

A study into legal aid has concluded that cutting state funding for early legal advice proved to be a false economy.

Consequently, restoring it through legal aid could actually save the taxpayer money.

The research, conducted for the Law Society by Ipsos MORI, was published this week. It reveals a statistical link between getting early legal advice and resolving problems sooner.

‘Without early advice, relatively minor legal problems can escalate, creating health, social and financial problems, placing additional pressure and cost on already stretched public services,’ said Law Society vice president Christina Blacklaws.

‘Anyone who can't afford to pay for early legal advice may struggle to identify solutions—meaning simple issues spiral and can end up in court bringing unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.’

Early legal advice for most areas was removed by LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012). For example, it is no longer available for family breakdown and child custody, which has led to fewer mediation referrals, which in turn has increased pressure on the courts.

However, the study shows that, on average, one in four people who receive early professional legal advice had resolved their problem within 3-4 months after it had first occurred. After nine months, three-quarters had resolved their issue.

The Law Society this week launched an early advice campaign.

Blacklaws said: ‘We are calling for legal aid for early advice from a lawyer to be reinstated for housing and family cases. We are keen to work with the government to address this issue.

‘The current situation is unsustainable. If early advice was available to those who need it, issues could be resolved before they worsen and become more costly for the individual—and the public purse.’

Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll