header-logo header-logo

11 October 2024 / Roger Smith
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Features , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

The reunion: 50 years on

192552
Roger Smith reflects on the radical vision that created law centres & left a lasting legacy

At the end of July, 70 septuagenarians crowded into a room in Gray’s Inn. Nothing very surprising about that. The Inns of Court are, of an evening, full of groups of old lawyers dining over talk of the triumphs and failures of their youth. But this lot were rather unusual. This was a meeting of those who 50 years ago thought of themselves as the spearhead of the popular radicalisation of the law. They were the survivors of the law centres established half a century ago. I was proud to be among them. I joined Camden Law Centre in the autumn of 1973.

Whether you could tell anything of the youth of the attenders by their current demeanour was an interesting question. Some had achieved an eminence of which they could barely have dreamed. I counted the digital or physical presence of three members of the House of Lords and at least half a

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll