header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

The End

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
17 January 2008 / David Burrows
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

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
NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor commissions & fiduciary duties
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
NLJ this week: The power of Interpol red notices
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Approach with caution post-Mazur
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
NLJ this week: Clarity on cladding
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
NLJ this week: Self-disclosure risks & rewards
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll