header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 January 2008 / David Burrows
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

The End

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Sadness and anger mark David Burrows’s decision to stop doing legal aid work

 

In September 2007 I decided that my firm could no longer do legal aid work. Mine is a small practice doing only family law work— including judicial review and professional negligence arising from family proceedings. My fee-earning staff had consisted of two fellows of the institute of legal executives (FILEX)—both had been with me nearly 10 years—working full-time on legal aid cases (mostly children proceedings); and a solicitor whose case load was about half legal aid (in terms of time spent). I have found one FILEX and her files another home—the other found her own job.

 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

The sorry history of legal aid since the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA 1999)—how sick is the euphemistic newspeak in that title?—has been rehearsed elsewhere. Things came to a head in March 2007 over a new contract which the Legal Services Commission (LSC) planned to impose on us. Judicial review applications were made, including a successful

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
NLJ this week: Diamond rings and broken promises

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: The battle over medical report fees intensifies
Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll