header-logo header-logo

Legal aid cuts start to bite

25 November 2010
Issue: 7443 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Implications “deeply worrying” for the profession

Legal professionals have been assessing the implications of the government’s consultation on legal aid.

James Stark, of Garden Court North, who specialises in housing law cases, described the proposals as “vague” and “worrying”.

“What they have said is that certain claims will continue to be funded, including where there is a risk of loss of someone’s home. It is not clear what has been taken out of scope. Where do you draw the line in a housing disrepair case? Is a faulty electric socket that could cause a fire serious enough?

“I can’t see anything in the 224-page document about mixed cases. What will happen where part of the claim is in scope but other parts aren’t?”
Stark said he was concerned about the proposal to extend “risk rates” to all cases where a costs order is expected. This is where the Legal Services Commission pays a reduced hourly rate, £50 instead of £120 for junior counsel, and the practitioner retrieves his full rate from the costs award.
“It will be difficult to get people to take on these cases because of the risk they won’t be able to recover their costs, and because these cases can sometimes involve huge quantities of work,” he said. “It amounts to a thumping great cut to fees.”

David Allison, chairman of family lawyers’ group, Resolution, said he was “deeply worried” that mediation was being seen as a “universal panacea”.
Legal aid is to be removed from private family law cases other than those involving domestic violence or forced marriage, but mediation for separating or divorcing couples will remain available.

While 90% of couples already reached agreement out of court, “those that do need legal aid usually do so for good reason—intimidation by one partner over another, or an imbalance of financial power in the relationship,” Allison said.

The Law Society is asking solicitors for evidence and case studies of how the cuts will impact on justice, to help it put forward its case to the Ministry of Justice. The consultation, “Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales”, is due to end on Valentine’s Day.

Issue: 7443 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll