header-logo header-logo

12 April 2013 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

The good fight

istock_000000103375medium

The loss of legal aid is a major cause for concern, says Jon Robins
 

Amid the fervent Jackson mania, it can feel as though the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) on the already beleaguered civil legal aid scheme gets overlooked. It remains poor cousin to the wealthy (relatively speaking) claimant PI lobby or, for that matter, the criminal Bar which has friends in high places and has always proved a powerful advocate in its own cause.

It is worth remembering that if one idea underpins the sprawling LASPO monster it is the political imperative to remove £350m from the £2.2bn legal aid scheme. It does this by axing entire areas of law except where they remain protected by the requirements of the European convention on human rights. So—one more time for those that for those that haven’t been paying attention—LASPO means no more legal aid for pretty much all social welfare law and that means welfare benefits, employment, debt, immigration, plus most housing except

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
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
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
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

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

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
back-to-top-scroll