header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: surviving the pandemic

05 May 2020
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
Law centres and advice charities have been offered a £5.4m boost to help them cope with increased demand for social welfare advice during the COVID-19 pandemic

The funding, announced by the Ministry of Justice this week, will be administered by the Access to Justice Foundation and the Law Centres Network (LCN).

LCN Chair Helen Rogers said: ‘The pandemic’s uneven impact is a grim reminder of the deep inequality in our society that affects every aspect of life.

‘This support recognises the key role of legal assistance in reducing inequality and bringing justice for all.’

Meanwhile, sections of the Bar and the solicitors’ profession have expressed concern about their ability to survive the pandemic.

In a Law Society survey of small firms (four or fewer partners, including sole practitioners) last week, 71% said they may have to close their business in the next six months as a result of the crisis. The respondents reported cashflow pressures and reduced fee income due to reduced court hearings and property transactions, and declining business activity overall.

Law Society President Simon Davis said many businesses will fall through the cracks of government relief, for example, there is no support for solicitors who are paid via dividends or who are self-employed but earned more than £50,000 profit in the preceding year.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar, welcomed the extra funding for charities and law centres but said: ‘Propping up law centres is only a small part of what is necessary to protect the public: if it is not accompanied by practical support for barristers and solicitors, many of whom are struggling to stay afloat, access to justice will sink with them.’

A Bar Council survey in April found 53% of self-employed barristers will not survive six months under current conditions without financial aid of some sort, and 74% won’t survive a year. The criminal bar was hardest hit―31% said they would not last three months without financial aid, 69% would not last six months and 88% would not last a year.

Pinto has called on the Treasury to expand its rescue package so more self-employed barristers are eligible.

Issue: 7885 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll