header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Under pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
16 March 2007 / Karen Mackay
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll