header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 March 2017 / John Ford
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Legal aid, judicial review & the fight for justice

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7736_ford

The administrative & legal failings of the Legal Aid Agency need urgent examination, says John Ford

For over 30 years I have run a small and effective legal aid practice in North London focusing on working for people who depend on legal aid for advice and representation in public law disputes, including education and community care. We survive by doing high quality judicial review (JR) and other work, for which we are rewarded appropriately by awards of costs from defendants who have let our clients down.

Most of our work is completed before the high cost case limit is reached, but over the years we have been unable to cope with the inadequate rates of pay and increasingly difficult stance taken by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) in the assessment of legal aid and payment of our costs.

A third incarnation

The LAA is the third corporate incarnation of the publicly funded legal service in the last 30 years. Many of us remember the days when legal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll