header-logo header-logo

16 October 2008 / Patrick Reeve
Issue: 7341 / Categories: Features , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Clean bill of health

The LSC is determined to protect vulnerable clients, says Patrick Reeve

Jon Robins’s article, “Heading for breakdown…” (NLJ, 26 September, p 1,311) makes some misleading comments about the current provision of publicly funded mental health legal services.

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is committed to helping those with mental health problems access legal advice, particularly advice and representation before the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). There is, for example, no financial eligibility test for work carried out in assisting people applying to the tribunal.

The main concern raised in the article was that the mental health standard fee scheme—implemented in January of this year—is causing providers to withdraw from mental health work, and leaving clients unable to access legal services. This was something that a few of our providers have raised with us, as the author of the article notes. We are aware of these concerns, and I would like to assure him that it is a matter that we are taking very seriously. Access to services for these vulnerable clients is a

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll