header-logo header-logo

16 March 2007 / Karen Mackay
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Under pressure

Unrealistic deadlines threaten to undermine government plans for restructuring family legal aid, warns Karen Mackay

Last July, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) published a joint consultation paper, Legal Aid Reform: The Way Ahead, on new fee structures for legal aid work. This was published at the same time as Lord Carter’s report, Legal Aid: A Market-Based Approach to Reform, on the procurement of legal aid services.
Lord Carter’s review, which was initiated in July 2005, had focused on criminal legal aid work until the final months when various representative bodies, such as Resolution, were invited to meetings to discuss civil and family legal aid. However, discussions had been very broad and it was a complete surprise when the DCA/LSC consultation paper published detailed fee schemes.

Ministers touring the country were left in no doubt that family lawyers did not think that the fee levels proposed were workable. Nor was the timetable, which envisaged a three-month consultation period and implementation within six months of the close of consultation. Family

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll