header-logo header-logo

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

Legal aid cuts start to bite

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

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