header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

LAG disputes MoJ figures

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Proposed impact of civil legal aid cuts “based on out of date figures”

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has understated the numbers potentially hit by the proposed cuts to legal aid by more than 150,000, the Legal Action Group (LAG) has claimed.

LAG cross-checked the data presented by the MoJ in its impact assessment after being alerted by the director of the Law Centres Federation that figures for social welfare law cases were higher using the 2009/10 case data than the 2008/09 data on which the MoJ estimates were based.

LAG claims that by using the older data, the MoJ has understated the reach of its cuts. It re-assessed the figures and concluded that 653,659 people would lose out on legal advice services as opposed to the MoJ’s estimate of 502,000.

Steve Hynes, director of LAG, said: “LAG believes that the MoJ has been guilty of playing rather fast and loose in its interpretation of the figures on the impact of the proposed civil legal aid cuts.

“Our research shows that 30%more people than the government

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: 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
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll