header-logo header-logo

08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers hope for permanent legal aid delay

Controversial reforms to civil & family law delayed until spring 2013

Lawyers have called for the delay in the legal aid reforms to be made permanent.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke announced last week that the reforms to civil and family law legal aid are to be pushed back six months from next October to April 2013. The proposed reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill remove legal aid from several areas of law, including clinical negligence, private family work, debt, benefits, housing and employment.

However, the parts of the Bill relating to Lord Justice Jackson’s civil costs reforms remain on schedule.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson said: “As things stand, there are no changes to the timetable for implementation of civil costs reform.”

David Greene, a partner at Edwin Coe, says: “We can only hope that the barrage of criticism of these cuts to legal aid at the Lords stage of the Bill has had some permanent effect.

“If the government actually proposes to abandon the cuts, Ken Clarke should have the gumption to say so, rather than leaving many in a state of unknown. If the delay hides a climbdown, this is good news for access to justice for a significant section of society.”

According to the MoJ, the legal aid reforms have been delayed in order to give 12 months for a full contract tender process to take place once Parliament has confirmed the precise content of the Bill, which is unlikely to receive Royal Assent earlier than March 2012.

An MoJ spokesperson said: “New contracts to provide civil and family advice will be offered to lawyers in April 2013, which will give them sufficient time to consider the final details of the new legal aid scheme, which Parliament is expected to agree in spring 2012.”

Legal groups vowed to continue their campaign against the Bill, which moves to committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 December.

Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

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