header-logo header-logo

Unhappy families

23 September 2010 / Linda Lee
Issue: 7434 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

The LSC has narrowed the options for access to justice. Linda Lee explains why the profession must fight back

In late August the Law Society formally commenced judicial review proceedings of the Legal Services Commission’s (LSC’s) recent family tender exercise, which cut the number of firms able to do family law legal aid work from 2,400 to 1,300 and severely threatens access to justice.

The society was forced to take these steps because the LSC has brought about a situation where there is likely to be inadequate availability of lawyers for care proceedings, and where in future many people, including the victims of domestic violence, will be unable to find a lawyer close enough to them who is willing and able to take on their case. In addition, the clients of around 1,000 firms face serious disruption, and the LSC appears to have no measures in place to handle the transitional chaos.

The LSC still seems to be in denial about the severity of the implications for vulnerable clients, which has left them unable

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

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
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
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
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
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'
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
back-to-top-scroll