header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Too high a price to pay?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
28 October 2011 / Deborah Evans
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Deborah Evans takes a critical look at the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill

In a just and moral society, an uninhibited access to justice should be available to all people, regardless of their means. It is one of the most important cornerstones of a modern civilisation. This is why many members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) are gravely worried about proposals in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

The proposals to restrict conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and to cut legal aid for victims of clinical negligence have some unjust consequences for injured people.

It is deeply unfair for victims to be made to use part of their damages to meet legal costs. Damages are intended to help compensate people for their pain and suffering. Victims do not choose to be injured. They should not pay for someone else’s mistake. Damages are not “winnings”—money does not “make it better” but it does help a victim live with the

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
Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Commercial disputes practice bolstered by partner hire

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

London competition team expands with collective actions specialist hire

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Commercial dispute resolution team in London welcomes partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll