header-logo header-logo

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

Campaign for early advice

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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
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’
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
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’
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
back-to-top-scroll