header-logo header-logo

11 January 2007
Issue: 7255 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

MPs asked to support fragile legal aid system

News

MPs have been briefed on the fragile state of criminal legal aid before this week’s crucial Westminster Hall debate on the future of legal aid.
Andrew Holroyd, vice president of the Law Society, says the society has circulated a full briefing paper to all MPs in England and Wales, outlining its concerns about the effects of Lord Carter’s proposals for overhauling legal aid.

“It’s vital that we get as much interest as we can from MPs and explain to them just how desperate the legal aid system is and how bad things are getting because of lack of funding and the need for further investment.
“When you consider just how paltry increases in legal aid rates have been since 1993 up to the present time—probably less than 1% per annum over those 13 years when the costs of supplying the service have gone up over 40%—there is very little fat in the system left to cut.

The government is risking a lot by pushing practitioners further down a road where people are saying what’s the point of being in this game any more—we just can’t make it pay.”

Concerns about Lord Carter’s proposals to reduce the £2bn legal aid budget and introduce price-competitive tendering will also be discussed by society
members at a special general neeting on legal aid on 17 January, after Southampton solicitor, Roger Peach, rallied support for direct action.
Holroyd says: “There isn’t an awful lot of difference between us and Mr Peach.

We all are extremely concerned about the
situation in relation to criminal legal aid. We think it’s wholly
unreasonable—when it’s clear that the supplier base is very fragile—for the government to be making more cuts to the system.”

Meanwhile the society and the Bar Council are pressing members of the House of Lords to consider key amendments to the Legal
Services Bill.

Bar Council chairman, Geoffrey Vos QC, says: “We support the main thrust of the Legal Services Bill, but there is a real risk of its true goals being impeded if it is not now made the subject of detailed fine-tuning by the House of Lords.”

Issue: 7255 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
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