header-logo header-logo

18 January 2012
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Londoners to lose out

Nearly 77,000 Londoners will lose access to legal aid under current government plans

The London Advice Watch report, published last week by the Legal Action Group (LAG), shows the impact of proposed cuts on individuals and advice centres, such as law centres and Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Steve Hynes, director of LAG, says Londoners would lose access to advice on housing, employment, debt, benefits and immigration.

“Firms of solicitors and advice agencies will lose £9.33m in funding and many will be threatened with closure,” he says.

“It is not unreasonable to say that nearly half of London’s 28 advice centres will close, and that about half of the 900 London law firms who do legal aid work will close.

“The King’s College report showing the knock-on effect of cutting legal aid was very interesting. It’s a completely false economy to cut back on legal aid for social welfare law—there’s a saying that, for every £1 spent on advice centres, £9 is saved on other state expenditure.

“Timely advice that nips problems in the bud saves them from spiralling out of control into other problems such as debt or housing. It’s a particular shame for smaller agencies that serve particular communities, many of which will disappear—these groups are the ‘big society’ writ large.”

The research showed the cuts are likely to be unpopular—88% of Londoners believe advice on common legal problems should be free to all, or to those on or below the national average income, and 94% of people who got advice received a free service.

Hynes said “A lot of families are facing problems, including the middle classes. Our research found that eight per cent of people in social groups A and B who sought advice in the last year needed advice on benefits.”

 

Issue: 7497 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll