header-logo header-logo

Lawyers ambivalent on LASPO

13 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Poll shows lackluster for LASPO

Only one in five law firms thought their business would benefit from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), according to a poll.

LASPO implements Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms to civil litigation, as well as introducing restrictions on legal aid.

Some firms anticipated improvements in cost control (seven per cent) and efficiency (four per cent), and potential reductions in overheads (two per cent), while others welcomed the ban on referral fees (three per cent) and greater transparency (three per cent). A few practices thought there may be some potential to pick up extra business that other firms will no longer handle.

However, two-thirds saw no benefits at all, and one in 10 did not know what the outcome would be, according to the Civil Litigation Costs Review Survey, commissioned by LexisNexis. The 102 survey respondents were selected from purchasers of Cook on Costs, and ranged from sole practitioners to firms with more than 21 partners. Only a few firms expressed concern that they would have to shed staff, or that LASPO would increase their administrative burdens.

Some medium and large practices expressed concern that the Act will help to drive civil litigation overseas. Fewer than half of law practices were actively preparing for the Act, with only five per cent saying they were fully prepared.

Nearly one in 10 firms has changed its business structure, and a quarter of firms have plans to do this. As far as recruitment was concerned, firms indicated there would be more hires than redundancies.

However, the vast majority of lawyers polled believe LASPO will reduce access to justice for the most vulnerable members of society.

Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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