header-logo header-logo

11 January 2013 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7543 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

New year, new debate

Access to justice is kicking off debate in 2013, notes Jon Robins

“The notion of ‘access to justice’ is somewhat totemic,” begins a new paper by Prof Stephen Mayson published by the Legal Services Institute (LSI) last month. Indeed. But what does it actually mean? It is “often easier to say what it is not rather than what it is”, the paper continues.

Mindful of Ken Clarke’s disingenuous assertion (at the launch of the LASPO bill) that “access to justice” was “the hallmark of a civilised society”, there has to be a pretty strong case to be made for this rather opaque phrase to be permanently decommissioned.

Professor Mayson (together with policy assistant Olivia Marley and senior policy adviser Stella Dunn) was looking at the phrase in the context of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007), which has “improving ‘access to justice’” as a regulatory objective. It’s there in s 1.

Conspicuous failing

A conspicuous failing in the “access to justice” debate has been that the phrase

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll