header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 March 2007 / Karen Mackay
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Under pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll