header-logo header-logo

25 June 2025
Issue: 8122 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Law Society vision for 21st century justice

An ‘NHS 111’ for legal services could save the system £72m in five years, the Law Society has said

It makes the claim in its ‘21st Century Justice’ report, published this week, where it urges the government to view civil justice as an essential public service like the NHS or education. The ‘111’ for law would be a free artificial intelligence-powered tool which signposts people to the help they need.

The Law Society also urges the government to ‘fix legal aid before all skilled providers completely disappear’—increasing legal aid fees in line with inflation and creating an independent body to conduct regular reviews of fees. It cites the recent cyberattack on the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) as proof the system needs reform, highlights a lack of trust between practitioners and the LAA, and proposes simpler contracts with practitioners. Another suggestion is that the LAA introduce a dedicated email and telephone line so practitioners can check decisions on the financial eligibility of cases are correct.

The Law Society advocates a ‘single ombudsman for every major area of public life’, on the basis that the many ombudsman services confuse consumers. It suggests reforming access to ombudsman services by removing the MP access filter for Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman referrals, empowering ombudsman schemes to undertake investigations and allowing small and medium enterprises access to ombudsman services in energy and telecoms sectors to give them access to more effective redress.

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Our report puts forward practical solutions to achieve a vision for redefining a fair justice system that works for the common good.’

Atkinson highlighted that legal aid ‘deserts’ where there is a shortage of providers have left nine in ten people without local support in some areas of law, while only a quarter of county court cases are fully digitised, causing delays.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

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

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
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll