header-logo header-logo

15 August 2012 / Paul Fisher
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

No such thing as a free lunch?

Paul Fisher shares his views on how to avert a pro bono crisis

The compliance of the legal profession with what has traditionally been understood as its moral imperative to “do good” by those less fortunate in society through the provision of pro bono legal advice is under threat. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the implementation of the Jackson Reforms have become the new concerns for an anxious profession. Regardless of the merits debate, their practical consequences are clear: the community legal service fund will suffer a sizeable reduction in value and the contractual instrument designed to fill the void left by a retreating state—the conditional fee agreement—will become far less attractive as an option for funding with the end of “success fee” recovery.

Three possible means of funding pro bono institutions during this daunting phase of austerity will be addressed in this paper: compulsory “pro bono costs”, the utilisation of “indemnity costs” and payments in lieu of mandatory pro bono services.

Compulsion

Section

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll