header-logo header-logo

Family legal aid warning

07 October 2010
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll