header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 October 2010
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Family legal aid warning

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

High Court victory tempered by questions over future progress

The family legal aid tendering round was “unfair, unlawful and irrational”, the High Court has ruled.

The judgment, delivered last week by Mr Justice Moses, quashes the outcome of the recent tender round, under which firms bid against each other for a share of available legal aid work. The result, due to be implemented next week, would have seen the number of firms contracted to supply family legal aid cut from 2,400 to 1,300.

Family law firms that had a contract with the LSC prior to the tendering round will now continue for an as yet unspecified time.

The Law Society brought the judicial review, R (Law Society) v Legal Services Commission, after lawyers warned the cuts would lead to a legal advice shortfall among many members of the public.

A jubilant Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said the court win was a victory for “thousands of families”. The tendering round “would have translated into thousands of people facing grave difficulty in obtaining justice—ordinary

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
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll