header-logo header-logo

Clean bill of health

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll