header-logo header-logo

29 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Law Society reviews four years of LASPO

The Law Society has published a devastating critique of LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012), which slashed civil and family legal aid.

In a report published this week, Access denied? LASPO four years on, the Law Society concludes that the legislation, which came into force in April 2013, has denied access to justice to society’s most vulnerable, hit the public purse and damaged the foundation of the justice system.

The report focuses on the impact of the cuts on the ability of citizens to defend and enforce their legal rights. It suggests LASPO increased pressure not just on the courts but on wider public services as legal problems escalated in the absence of legal aid for early advice. LASPO aimed to cut legal aid spending by £450m.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said hundreds of thousands of people eligible for legal aid one day became ineligible the very next, but it was a ‘false economy’.

‘Access to justice should be treated as an essential public service—equal to healthcare or education,’ he said. ‘Early legal advice can help people sort out their problems and prevent them from having to rely on welfare support or involve the courts. This makes a real difference to them but also saves taxpayers money.

‘Failure to get early expert legal advice can result in problems escalating dramatically, when they could have been nipped in the bud. The cuts have led to many people facing court unrepresented, in cases where lawyers would have resolved the issues without involving the court, via mediation or negotiation.’

Bourns referred to reports that tenants of Grenfell Tower were unable to access legal aid to challenge safety concerns about the building. If true, he said, ‘then we may have a very stark example of what limiting legal aid can mean’.

Issue: 7752 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll