header-logo header-logo

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

The axe fell across civil and family legal aid this week as the Ministry of Justice announced its cuts.

Public funding is to be withdrawn from private and family law cases, such as divorce and child contact, and from debt, education, employment, housing, clinical negligence, immigration and welfare benefits.

However, funding will remain in place “where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm, or immediate loss of their home”.

Consequently, legal aid is retained for asylum cases, for debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It remains for judicial reviews, for some cases involving discrimination, and for legal assistance to bereaved families in inquests. In family law, it remains for cases involving domestic violence or forced marriage, mediation for family disputes, and for cases where children are being taken into care. Fees paid in civil and family cases will be reduced by ten per cent.

The consultation, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, ends on Valentine’s Day.

It is estimated that the cuts will save £350m by 2014-2015. The Ministry of Justice is committed to cutting £2bn from its overall spend by that session.
Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said: “Legal aid clients are some of the most vulnerable in society and good legal representation where required is essential if they are to obtain justice.”

Steve Hynes, director, Legal Action Group, said: “It is worse than we expected. The cuts have fallen disproportionately on civil legal aid, and mean half a million people will have nowhere to go for advice at a time when the not-for-profit sector is also experiencing cuts.”

The proposals raised some interesting questions, he said. “Would you get advice on housing benefit—is that housing law? It seems fundamentally unjust that at a time when they are introducing a ceiling of £400, and when landlords are going to evict people who can’t pay their rent that people will lose access to free legal advice. 36,000 housing cases will be taken from scope.”

David Greene, partner, Edwin Coe LLP, said: “To some degree the consultation period and the following political discourse next Spring may set lawyers against politicians. The politicians will mix the huge policy issues here with an attack on lawyers accused of seeking to line their own pockets. Any slated attack on lawyers and their income gains political purchase but the profession will highlight the real attack on the ability of the most vulnerable to gain access to justice.”

 

Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
back-to-top-scroll