discussion forum

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is making a statement on changes to the system of criminal and civil legal aid in England and Wales. It is expected that about £350m will be cut from the £2.1bn annual legal aid bill.

Reports suggest that divorce, medical malpractice, immigration, employment, welfare and some personal injury cases are among the types of cases expected to be affected by the legal aid reforms.

More information on the proposed changes is now on the Ministry of Justice website.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease151110b.htm

The consultation paper on the proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales have been published on the Ministry of Justice website.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/legal-aid-reform-151110.htm

The consultation is open now and ends on 14 February 2011. The paper is available on the Ministry of Justice website.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-reform-consultation.pdf

The BBC website reports that funding for a wide range of disputes, including some divorce cases and clinical negligence would be axed as part of the proposals to reform legal aid. The BBC says that legal aid will also no longer be available in school admissions and exclusions and some employment tribunal cases. But asylum cases, mental health cases and debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk will all still be funded.

Announcing the proposals Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Mr Clarke told MPs there was a:

compelling case for going back to first principles in reforming legal aid. It cannot be right that the taxpayer is footing the bill for unnecessary court cases which would never have even reached the courtroom door, were it not for the fact that somebody else was paying.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11741289

Further comments on the proposed changes to legal aid are beginning to appear. These include:

Legal Services Commission

LSC Chief Executive Carolyn Downs said, ‘The Legal Services Commission is committed to doing all it can to help the Government ensure there is a sustainable legal aid system for the future.’

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/11556_12187.asp?page=1

Legalweek

Reports that the spending cuts will be coupled a substantial shake-up of civil litigation that is set to see the MoJ implement the majority of the funding reforms proposed earlier this year by Lord Justice Jackson.

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1898071/moj-details-legal-aid-cuts-jackson-reforms-win-ministerial-backing

Legalfutures

Reports that solicitors could be struck off for failing to declare the interest they have made on client accounts and it is expected that 500,000 less cases would be dealt with.

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-targets-client-account-interest-as-it-outlines-400m-legal-aid-cuts

politics.co.uk

Reports that family and welfare cases will face the brunt of the cuts in funding and legal aid applicants with over £1,000 in disposable income will be expected to contribute £100 to their legal costs.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/clarke-unveils-massive-cuts-to-legal-aid-$21385588.htm

Law Society Gazette

Reports that legal aid providers as a whole will see their income slashed by up to £154m annually as the government unveiled its plans for reform of the system.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/government-unveils-overhaul-legal-aid-and-civil-litigation-costs

more on welfare benefits being taken out of scope now in rightsnet news @

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/welfare-benefits-to-be-taken-out-of-scope-of-civil-legal-aid/

Oh well. There aren’t any legal aid solicitors round here who know anything at all about welfare benefits. In fact there’s only one who does family law and another one who does crime, and we don’t have an LSC contract. So we shan’t see much change.

taking welfare benefits out of legal aid .... well, i’m still spluttering having read the bbc’s report earlier this evening..

Taking welfare rights out of the equation is, well wrong.
I’m reeling from this announcement and am starting to become even more of a conspiracy theorist by the minute…. government change the benefits so much claimants can’t understand, so remove the specialist advice and representation legal aid provides (and at a very small cost per case I might add) what a way to reduce the number of people claiming benefits.
Diabolical

plus single gateway (see para 4.272) ...

‘We propose that, in future, we will provide a simple, straightforward telephone service, based on the current Community Legal Advice (CLA) helpline (first established nationally in 2004). This advice service will be able to refer clients to the source of advice most appropriate to them, and will act as a reliable one-stop shop for clients looking for legal advice. The CLA helpline will be established as the single gateway to civil legal aid services ... this will mean that clients will make their initial contact to access civil legal aid services through the Operator Service, rather than through a face to face provider.’

Ariadne - 15 November 2010 06:59 PM

Oh well. There aren’t any legal aid solicitors round here who know anything at all about welfare benefits. In fact there’s only one who does family law and another one who does crime, and we don’t have an LSC contract. So we shan’t see much change.

It’ll be massive change to us.  We have LSC contracts across five offices covering most of the social welfare spectrum (and Family).  A helluva lot of us have many many years experience in our respective disciplines.

Additionally it’s obviously not just solicitors who depend on LSC funding for helping clients.

I could weep (and to be honest scream in utter frustration and anger at this government) not just for our jobs but for the clients who wouldn’t get anyhere without proper advice and assistance.  So the govt won’t just be saving on the legal aid budget but a substantial saving on state benefits one way or another.

Can I ask a “naive” question?
What are the chances that the MOJ will back down on removing funding for debt and benefits if they receive very negative feedback about the proposal (which no doubt they will)?

Whatever feedback they get the Government will tell us that it is harsh but fair, we are all in this together and it cannot be right that someone working cannot afford legal aid when someone who doesn’t gets it. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it. People did vote for them and that to me is more the worry that people didn’t expect this. Although of cause Sadiq Khan more or less said Labour had planned similar ideas. As for the notion that people have no right to challange a decision maker this is plainly wrong as is the idiocy that the JCP+ etc can help clients. Oh yeah because 80% + of our casework is not based on poor decision making by that same organisation in the first place is it?

Quoting from the news item on Rightsnet “the government says that it also believes that there is an overwhelming case for reform of the legal aid system, with its scope having been widened far beyond what was originally intended when the modern scheme was established in 1949…..”

How disingenuous can this little gang of upstarts get?  Of course the scope has widened since 1949 as back then we didn’t have a whole lot of complex social welfare law giving individuals hard won rights that organizations like CPAG and Shelter had successfully fought for down the years.  Osbourne successfully sold the lie that the country is nearly bankrupt and the deficit must be slashed and slashed now.  Nonsense!  This is unfinished Tory business held over from the Thatcher and Major administrations: the systematic dismantling of public services.  Big society my a**e!!

BeatriceC - 16 November 2010 10:36 AM

Can I ask a “naive” question?
What are the chances that the MOJ will back down on removing funding for debt and benefits if they receive very negative feedback about the proposal (which no doubt they will)?

About as much notice as they took of the consultation before they introduced the Universal Credit.  For those who don’t know, this was introduced as policy before the closing date for consultation submissions.

I watched channel 4 news last night and was quite disappointed in the director of LAG’s attempt to argue against the change.

I gave up responding to consultations many years ago when I decided that it was a waste of time and money. I’m still reeling over HMRC’s total rejection of concerns, which have since been proven correct, raised in tax credit consulations as early as 1999.

Very recently there’s been some concern over government policy (don’t remember what) that’s been confirmed during a consultation period.

It seems to be that consultations (voluntary sector not excluded) are nothing more than a non-adversarial way of informing people of forthcoming changes and they are rarely genuine attempts at gaining views with the aim of positively informing public policy. Pah!

BeatriceC - 16 November 2010 10:36 AM

Can I ask a “naive” question?
What are the chances that the MOJ will back down on removing funding for debt and benefits if they receive very negative feedback about the proposal (which no doubt they will)?

i doubt that they will change the decision to remove WR from scope.  but the CLA gatekeepers have to be able to refer callers somewhere, otherwise a hell of a lot of casework will fall upon MPs, and there will be fewer of them…

pretty sure it would cost more money than they save to seriously tackle poor administration in the DWP, and the problem of official error underpayments.  the need for social justice remains, and you can’t beat the laws of thermodynamics.  so, the consultation will be a good time to refer to relevant facts and point to crucial areas which need to be balanced in the interests of social justice , following the removal of legal advice and assistance from the landscape.

Steve Hynes, Director of LAG discusses the proposed changes to legal aid on Channel 4 news.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/151110/clipid/151110_LEGALAIDDISCO_15

And writes about them in The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/16/green-paper-legal-aid-cuts-poll

The Law Society has called on law firms to lobby MPs over the impact of the government’s proposed legal aid overhaul, in the first stage in its campaign to fight the cuts.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/society-launches-campaign-fight-legal-aid-cuts

Minister Jonathan Djanogly set out the government’s plans to support mediation as a form of dispute resolution for commercial and private disputes, including family disputes.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/announcement181110b.htm

The LAG blog highlights the effects of legal aid proposals and suggests that over 500,000 people less people will receive help with the legal problems.

http://legalactiongroupnews.blogspot.com/2010/11/civil-law-to-suffer-bulk-of-proposed.html

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) intends to track the impact of the legal aid changes on the quality of legal services.

Ombudsman Adam Sampson said he was worried about how a body like LeO, ‘with a clear commitment to the values of equality and human rights can make sense of what we are being asked to do by government’. He added:

now more than ever, if we want to track the impact on the quality of services offered to poorer people in this country, we need to make a special effort to ensure that they do actually complain if those services get worse rather than simply suffer in silence.

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/ombudsman-to-track-impact-of-legal-aid-cuts-on-quality-of-legal-services

Lord Bach has published a short piece on the epolitix website giving his views on the proposed changes to legal aid which he says are ‘shocking, callous and counterproductive.

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/shocking-callous-and-counterproductive/

Justice for All reports that politicians, lawyers and voluntary sector advisers and Justice for All campaigners were present in parliament for one of the first chances to hear from the Minister for Legal Aid, Jonathan Djanogly, since the Green Paper was published.

http://www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/Minister-quizzed-at-parliamentary-meeting

Lord Bach says that cuts to legal aid budget ‘shocking, callous and counterproductive’  -

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/shocking-callous-and-counterproductive/

MPs concerned that access to justice will be denied -

MPs from the House of Commons’ Justice Select Committee quizzed the Government-appointed Legal Services Commission (LSC) about whether its programmes help people get justice by getting the legal advice they need, this week.

Justice for All campaigners observing heard how organisations contracted by the LSC continued providing legal advice whilst not knowing whether funds would continue for the help they give people in communities, some for over 40 years.

MPs are concerned that many communities across the UK would no longer receive help through the LSC’s legal aid programme.

more @ http://www.justice-for-all.org.uk/News/MPs-concerned-that-access-to-justice-will-be-denied

Baroness Deech suggests on the epolitix.com website that the cuts in legal aid could end up costing the taxpayer more if they are not properly assessed. She says:

More research needs to be undertaken before the consultation ends next February. The effects of proposed cuts in legal aid which affect access to justice in family (as well as other) cases need to be properly assessed to ensure they don’t end up costing the taxpayer more and thereby defeating the very purpose they were intended to achieve.

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/vulnerable-people-should-not-have-to-bear-the-burden/

LAG’s News Blog reports that a number of equality impact assessments suggest that ‘women, people with disabilities and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups will be especially badly hit if the planned changes to the scope of legal aid go ahead.

http://legalactiongroupnews.blogspot.com/

The Law Society has commissioned a survey to examine the impact of the government’s legal aid reforms on the finances of solicitors’ firms.

It says:

We have concerns that communities will lose the expertise offered by local firms and wish to present this concern in a dispassionate manner backed up with independent evidence, as we believe the government will find this more convincing.

Deadline for responses is 21 January 2011.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=434026

Article from George Monbiot in Guardian on Monday about legal aid proposals -

There was a time when conservatives tried to assure people of continuity. The social order would remain intact. Revolution and reform would be suppressed, disruptive change averted. As political consciousness spread, this message became untenable. They repositioned themselves, first as cautious reformers, then, under Margaret Thatcher, as Jacobins, tearing down the old establishment to release people’s stifled aspirations.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Kenneth Clarke’s assault on civil legal aid, presented to the public as a blow against greedy lawyers milking the state. The Daily Mail, which knows the script to the letter, supports his proposed cuts by blasting the “fat-cat lawyers taking a fortune from hard-pressed taxpayers” and welcoming plans to slash their “multimillion-pound earnings”.

And some letters today highlighting the Parliamentary lobby and meeting taking place -

George Monbiot is right that the government’s proposals for legal aid are an assault on access to justice, but he is wrong about the lack of opposition. Today, campaigners will converge on Westminster for the launch of the Justice for All campaign, calling on the government to urgently rethink its plans.

The Law Society and other representative groups have called for a ‘fundamental rethink’ of ‘radical’ government proposals to introduce a telephone gateway for all civil legal aid services. The impact assessments published with the government’s recent legal aid green paper estimate that the introduction of a sole telephone gateway and the extension of the specialist community legal advice telephone helpline will cut the income received by firms for ‘legal help’ work by 75%, while not-for-profit groups would lose 85%.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/calls-rethink-telephone-gateway-civil-legal-aid

The Law Society has warned that the courts could be ‘thronged by countless individuals unable to have a lawyer, like a scene from Pickwick Papers’, if the government presses ahead with legal aid reforms without conducting research on the likely effect on the number of litigants in person.

In the green paper, the Ministry of Justice accepted that there is little evidence on the impact that litigants in person have on the conduct or outcome of proceedings. However, it cited research conducted in 2005, claiming that this concluded that there was no significant difference in terms of court time between cases conducted by a litigant in person and those where clients were represented by lawyers.

The Law Society said the green paper had failed to report that the 2005 research concluded that litigants in person found it hard to participate in their cases and, where they did, often damaged their own interests and created more work for their opponents and the courts.

Litigants in person set to rise