header-logo header-logo

03 November 2017
Issue: 7768 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Lawyers welcome LASPO review

Post-implementation reviews for legal aid & civil litigation funding

The government has announced its long-awaited review of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012).

In a memorandum to the Justice select committee this week, David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor, committed the Ministry of Justice to producing post-implementation reviews for both legal aid and civil litigation funding.

According to the memorandum, the reviews will be ‘primarily concerned with assessing the reforms from an analytical perspective, in the manner of an impact assessment, rather than reporting certain elements of the Act’s implementation and operation’. Both reviews are scheduled for completion by the end of April 2018.

LASPO removed legal aid from whole areas of civil and family law in April 2013, as well as introducing Lord Justice Jackson’s civil litigation funding reforms. Since then, it has faced mounting criticism from within the legal profession, with members of the public often unable to find or afford vital legal advice on housing, family, immigration and social welfare issues.

Law Society President Joe Egan said: ‘This post-implementation appraisal by government is long-awaited and needs to be comprehensive. This Act meant hundreds of thousands of people eligible for legal aid on 31 March 2013 became ineligible the very next day.’

Andrew Landon QC, Chair of the Bar, said: ‘This review comes not a moment too soon.

The Bar Council will continue to press for a wide scope which includes the impact of LASPO on society and considers the combined and interactive effect of legal aid cuts with welfare and other civil justice reforms.’

In September, the Bach Commission published its review of legal aid, calling for reforms including more provision of legal help and the abolition of the Legal Aid Agency. In June, the Law Society published its report, Access denied? LASPO four years on, which found legal aid cuts had increased pressure on public services, as unresolved legal issues escalated into bigger problems. It made 25 recommendations, including reintroducing legal aid for early advice and improving exceptional case funding.

Issue: 7768 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

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