header-logo header-logo

17 November 2023
Issue: 8049 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Legal regulators & the evergreen issue of unmet legal need

146641
Roger Smith reports back from a Legal Services Consumer Panel conference on unmet legal need, in this week’s NLJ

Smith, a former director of JUSTICE, notes that ‘the regulators have, to their credit, faced up to some of the issues’. But what answers do they have?

Smith relays some of the points raised, including by law centre advisors, at the conference. These include that most legal problems arise in clusters. Smith writes: ‘Unsurprisingly, the most common clusters involved welfare benefits (ie poverty) and, for example, housing.

‘People encountered both systemic (such as how public service are administered) and personal barriers (such as poor knowledge of sources of help).’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll