header-logo header-logo

17 July 2008 / Tim Dutton KC
Issue: 7330 / Categories: Opinion , Public
printer mail-detail

A public-private partnership

The profession—not the government—should be shaping the future of legal aid, says Tim Dutton QC

At the All Party Parliamentary Group meeting on 20 May of this year, I launched the discussion paper Legal Aid and the Public Interest—Towards an Effective Public Private Partnership. This sets out the Bar's basis for engaging with all stakeholders in the legal aid system in a sensible, objective and necessary debate, away from some of the customary brouhaha, about the type of legal aid system we all want to see in the future in this country.

We tend to hear the oft-quoted mantra that our legal aid system is the “most expensive” in the world. If true it is something to be proud of, provided of course that the expense is not the result of waste and overpayment. In much the same way that the National Health Service has been held in high regard, we should be proud that our legal aid system has been considered one of the best at providing justice for the most vulnerable and

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll