header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 October 2011 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Rolling back justice (4)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

What will ABSs mean for legal aid firms? Jon Robins collects the views of those who are for & against deregulation

This week sees the start-date for the licensing of alternative business structures (ABSs), the most radical aspect of the Legal Services Act 2007, which allows for both the external ownership of law firms and the floating of legal practices on the stock exchange. But just what does this significant step towards deregulation of legal services mean for the publicly-funded end of the profession? Does it mean anything? The already precarious financial base of legal aid firms is about to be decimated by a government reform agenda predicated on the objective of removing £350m from a £2.1bn scheme. Ministers also want to slash fees for civil and family by 10% across the board.

Breath of fresh air?

Can ABSs breathe some life into a dying sector? A couple of years ago I asked Carolyn Regan, then chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, whether the Legal Services Act had anything

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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
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’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
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
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
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’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
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’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll