header-logo header-logo

26 May 2011 / Andrew Mcintyre
Issue: 7467 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Picking up the slack

Should it be compulsory to seek pro bono costs? Andrew McIntyre investigates

When the full force of the government’s £2bn budget cuts to the Ministry of Justice hits, the impact will be severe. Clients on low incomes will suffer a double blow: the contraction of Legal Services Commission funding will restrict their access to state-subsidised legal assistance; and cutbacks on grants made to charities will limit the ability of pro bono organisations to provide them with free support. The government anticipates that the rigours of the cuts can be mitigated by redirecting litigants to alternative forms of dispute resolution and encouraging the use of conditional fee arrangements. However, shifting the burden to the private sector will not compensate entirely for the government’s abdication of responsibility. Creative solutions are required to fill the gap.

Pro bono costs scheme

The pro bono costs scheme could pick up some of this slack. Under s 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007, a court may make a costs order against the opponent of a party who

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