Civil legal aid facing ‘devastation’ after £154m cut
Lawyers warned this week that civil legal aid services could be devastated by government plans that would see the total annual income of legal aid providers slashed by up to £154m.
The proposed reforms would cut state help to all but the very poorest, the Law Society warned.
Nearly 550,000 cases a year – including 265,000 family cases – will no longer be eligible for legal aid, and fees in civil and family cases will be cut by 10% across the board, the Ministry of Justice proposed in its consultation paper published on Monday.
Small legal aid providers will be ‘disproportionately affected’ by the reforms compared with other legal aid providers, accompanying documents revealed. Legal aid firms as a whole stand to earn between £144m and £154m less annually, the papers said.
The plans are intended to save £350m from the MoJ’s £2.1bn legal aid budget by 2014/15.
Justice secretary Ken Clarke told parliament that legal aid ‘will still routinely be available in civil and family cases where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where there is risk of serious physical harm or the immediate loss of their home’.
But he added: ‘At more than £2bn each year, we currently have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world. This cannot continue.’
The categories proposed to be cut from the legal aid scheme are: private law children and family cases where domestic violence is not present; education; immigration where the individual is not detained; clinical negligence; ancillary relief cases where domestic violence is not present; employment; welfare benefits; debt matters where the client’s home is not at immediate risk; consumer and general contract; Upper Tribunal appeals; tort claims; legal help for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority applications; and some housing matters.
The MoJ said the budget reductions should be offset in part by increased use of alternative dispute resolution, especially for private family law cases. It also mooted two alternative sources of funding: the interest generated from solicitors’ client accounts; and a supplementary legal aid scheme, where a cut is taken from general damages won by successful claimants in receipt of legal aid.
The MoJ confirmed that price competitive tendering for criminal legal aid is set to be introduced in 2011/12, and later, for civil and family legal aid.
The announcement of legal aid cuts came after the Law Society published the results of its in-depth review of access to justice. The report offered new solutions to finance legal aid, including an increased tax on alcohol to supplement the legal aid budget in recognition of the extent to which criminal behaviour stems from alcohol abuse, and a levy on the financial services industry to meet the cost of City fraud cases.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson responded to the government’s green paper by warning that ‘only the poorest of the poor’ will be eligible for legal aid should the proposals be fully implemented.
Legal Action Group director Steve Hynes said: ‘The government is walking away from ordinary members of the public. At the heart of this is a complete lack of strategy. It’s about quick savings that will cause the least political damage. The plans will devastate civil legal aid services.’
Legal management consultant Andrew Otterburn said: ‘The cuts will put some firms under huge pressure. A 10% cut in fees could result in a 50% cut in profits. For many firms this will have a significant impact, and a number are already struggling following the upheaval of the family tender.’
Along with its plans for legal aid cuts, the MoJ simultaneously launched a consultation setting out its intentions to implement Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals for reforming the funding of civil litigation. It will adopt Jackson’s recommendations of abolishing the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums from the losing party; permitting contingency fee agreements whereby legal fees can be paid from a winning party’s damages; and increasing general damages by 10% for personal injury. However, the government said it will wait until the Legal Services Board completes its review of referral fees before choosing whether or not to follow Jackson’s recommendation to abolish the fees in personal injury cases.
Comments
The End
In truth, this is really the end for civil legal aid. I am sure the Law Society will now concentrate on trying to save it but it would be much better to put up a big fight over the proposals to "water down" CFA's, as many firms are going to need them to survive.
At last
Three cheers is what I say.
After the recent shameful documentary a Liverpool law firm contributed to showing just how vile elements of the profession are I'm glad it has been decided this country can no longer afford the most generous legal aid system.
Germany spends a fraction what we do and Germans still have access to justice.
As far as the public and taxpayers are concerned an industry most consider to be full of pretentious ambulance chasers is finally getting its just deserts. Well done.
This post just indicates how
This post just indicates how misinformed people are. The Liverpool law firm concerned in that documentary was a no-win-no-fee personal injury firm who derived its money from conditional fee agreements. Such firms only thrive becasue legal aid was withdrawn from personal injury cases some years ago.The Lord Chancellor's proposal means that most cases will now be conducted on a CFA, so there will be way more disreputable ambulance chasing going on. If you want us to be like the US, crack open the champagne at the demise of Legal Aid, but do make sure you never become poor or ill.
At last
Hi anonymous 10:12
do you consider places such you local CAB or law centre to be "pretentious ambulance chasers" and the "vile elements of the proffession"?
Hi annonymous No, but then it
Hi annonymous
No, but then it doesn't cost two thousand million pound to run them does it? It can be done at a fraction of the cost full stop. Most people I know in business are glad that this has happened. We spend too much money on legal aid, there are better ways to end disputes. This reduction in fee income for layers should be celebrated.
Unfortunately, in most areas
Unfortunately, in most areas people will be lucky to have things such as "Law Centres". For example, those in Manchester are likely to close due to lack of funding. It is disgraceful to allow this to happen but happen it will.
Nothing to cheer about, but....
Cutting legal aid is nothing to cheer about, but, sadly, it does seem that some lawyers (solicitors and barristers) have exploited the system, perhaps not even deliberately, but passively allowed costs to mount up to their benefit, where in the past there would not have been such a lengthy procedure.
It's rather like the M25 scenario - if you build an extra lane it is made use of, soon you need another extra lane, and then another - capacity is always taken if given freely. If one looks at the growth in legal aid over the last 20 years it is quite incredible, at least up to the mid-2000s.
Equally, as legal aid payments increased so did the number of lawyers living off it. The question is: if we all lived in a world where legal aid 20 years ago was sufficient, then how come it needed to rise so far? Perhaps it didn't. Perhaps we have simply got carried away by the idea that a court hearing is the best place to solve every human problem. Given the will and the money, any issue can find its way to the courts - as seen in America, where nothing is beyond litigation.
We can't live in a world where the court is the answer for everything - and certainly not when it is the average person who are paying for it - who never uses the courts.
One might say that if costs had not mounted up so high, the cuts would never have been so painful.
The Focus
"Legal Action Group director Steve Hynes said: ‘The government is walking away from ordinary members of the public. At the heart of this is a complete lack of strategy. It’s about quick savings that will cause the least political damage. The plans will devastate civil legal aid services.’"
Then do your job and make it cause political damage, the will of the nation (despite the Murdoch media protestations to the contrary) is overwhelmingly supportive of free legal advice provision for those who need it. Some of these cuts are so unfairly targeted it beggars belief, yes funding for ambulance chasers is very hard to justify but funding to help the poorest and weakest members of society now that is a cause the majority can rally behind.
"Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson responded to the government’s green paper by warning that ‘only the poorest of the poor’ will be eligible for legal aid should the proposals be fully implemented."
Not in some areas they won't Desmond (welfare benefits, housing, family) glad to see you have carefully read and understood the proposals, now back to your day-to day protecting the city firms like a good little Law Society executive.
Let's not let our so called spokesmen persuade us to give up before we have begun, true legal aid workers have more backbone than these 2 jokers who supposedly represent us. We need to make our voices heard so we can continue to protect our clients.
Anon 10:12 and Bernard
Please please please read the proposals and look again at your comments. Many places such as CAB and law centres who provide cheap legal advice under the Legal Help scheme wil be closed or severly reduced under these proposals. The areas that are being taken out of scope are in largely in Social Welfare Law. Much of the Legal Help fund is created and there to provide advice and assistance and prevent problems turning into bigger problems that the need courts to sort them out. ost of the money paid out is NOT in connection with court applications
Anonymous on Thu, 18/11/2010
Anonymous on Thu, 18/11/2010 - 10:12 is clearly a subscribers to the Daily Mail or maybe an employee of the LSC (both as equally useless). Anyone who thinks that vast sums of money can be made from Family Legal Aid is living on another planet!!
The cuts need to be made from Immigration and Criminal and Clinical Negligence/PI.
The Social Welfare areas are massively important, especially in today's financial climate.
Employee of the LSC....
..Let me guess, you are one of the overpaid lawyers who have been ripping off the public purse for years!
Most Employee's of the LSC are in the same boat as the solicitors who want to help people get the justice they need. If it were not for small mind people like you this would be much easier!
Good
A few less (tax payer funded) Mercs in the Partners' car park then. If you don't want to do publically funded work, gdo somethin else. Not difficult - oh I forgot, you are all altruists. Right.
The proposals are
The proposals are disgraceful. Forget the removal of scope from most areas but the 10% across the board cuts are an outrage. In care proceedings the recent cuts were negotiated over years and already considered to be intolerable to most. This will push many solicitors and barristers out of the area entirely leaving a total vacuum of people to defend those facing losing their children to the state. The state has an obligation to afford those whose children it seeks to remove the right to be represented by competent lawyers - these latests cuts are just appalling.
There are no surprises here.
There are no surprises here. The writing has been on the wall for legal aid for the past decade. Far too many solicitors were only too willing to jump into bed with the LSC when franchising/contracting was introduced. Sadly solicitors firms are motivated purely by self interest, and getting a franchise early was seen as a good move and enabled you to get one over on your non franchised neighbours.(That was the view at the firm I worked for). Perhaps if there had been more opposition earlier, then neither legal aid lawyers or legal aid would be in the parlous postion it now is. The law society will do what it has always done concerning legal aid - nothing. Solicitors will thrash around, complaining bitterly about how unfair the LSC/MOJ has been but will still comply with whatever they ask even though they know it means that their livelihoods are threatened. Yes it is intolerable and disgracefiul, but I am afraid that this is what happens when you sit back and do nothing
@ Anon 22.10 'Remove the
@ Anon 22.10
'Remove the right to be represented by competent lawyers' Name one that actually won a case against the state, NONE, Do you think the state are unaware of the statistics and they never lose, been there, ended up self represented after the competent lawyers walked away with their fat cheques, We applied an Appeal in the birth registered name of my Grandson, put forward a full case made by the local authority of a case of a child that has never existed, this was known by all as the GAL, NSPCC and Social Service reports all had the birth registered name in support of a Care Order (Second Half of Split Case) in contradiction to the false name on all court applications, and Judgements made in the prior courts obviously trying to hood wink the judge who in his judgement mentioned that the reports were most interesting after he was told "they could not even get his name correct" The court of appeal Judge Thorpe and Judge Phillips turned down the appeal in the false name and notified the local authority which alerted them they did not have a legal care order for my grandson, did this deter the local authority from changing all documentation and going ahead with adoption NO we had no chance against the local authority so what is the point of legal aid
To support above I have all
To support above I have all court documentation, throughout the case one person must have had a heart, I was phoned anonymously and told my Grandchilds new name and whereabouts he is now 14yrs old, we as a family have promised a Judge Cazalat on oath not to approach him until he reaches the age of 18yrs as promised we wait
I hope the courts are ready
I hope the courts are ready for the number of litigants in person soon to be coming through.... I'm glad I'm not a DJ...
Am I just being optimistic
Am I just being optimistic thinking that these proposals are just a negotiating tactic - i.e. go in at the worse possible extreme and then, after consultation, water them down a bit?
Access to Justice
Is appparently the hallmark of a civilised society... Unless you're disabled, have no assets, and are the respondent in a contentious divorce case. Then the 'civilised' thing to do, I presume, is to grin and bear it while the state robs you of your dignity. The most disappointing thing is that I voted for some of the people behind this.
Isn't anybody bothered about
Isn't anybody bothered about the suggested collection of client account interest to fund legal aid which would affect every firm of solicitors?.
Good news...
The legal aid system has been abused for years (I trained in a legal aid firm and could tell a great many stories). The greed of lawyers and the stupidity of many (NOT ALL) of their legally aided clients has brought the legal aid gravy train into the buffers. Good news for the tax payer; bad news for the feckless/spongers and those who so willingly represent them for their own gain.
Well, not just legal aid-in
Well, not just legal aid-in fact far from!
The amount of "work" billed which is totally unnecessary, usually in the large firms where the lawyers have "targets" to meet is an absolute disgrace.
The Courts are little better, with the judges being utterly incapable of disposing of matters within a reasonable time- again a question of justifying their existence.