Legal aid firm Law For All in administration
London and regional not-for-profit advice service Law For All went in administration today, the Gazette can confirm.
The organisation provides legal services in the London boroughs of Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond, as well as in East Anglia and the Midlands.
Law For All advises on debt, social security, housing, employment and family law. The majority of its work is funded by the Legal Services Commission.
It also receives funding from the London Borough of Ealing and support from other groups and individuals, including City firm Clifford Chance.
Bob Nightingale, chief executive of the London Legal Support Trust, confirmed the news to the Gazette: ‘This is just the latest in a line of orgnisations that have found themselves unable to continue anymore, on account on the current level of funding, and that is before the impending 10% cuts.’
He added: ‘What we’re seeing is that organisations like Law For All could have a sustainable future, but when they have to make redundancies their resources can’t cope and they become involvement because the cost of redundancies is more than their reserves. It’s not surprising that after so many years of cuts to their funding that orgnisations have low reserves.’
The Gazette has been unable to speak to anyone at Law For All at this stage. Law For All employs 50 lawyers. In 2008 it advised approximately 15,000 people and opened case files for about 3,000.
Comments
So they couldn't continue on
So they couldn't continue on the current level of funding?
Welcome to the real world, where firms also have to pay for redundancies, but its the partners who are personally liable.
Times are tough
It is unfortunate that Law For All went in administration today, but things are tough for most people out there just now. Going on what Patrick said above, on a brighter note there may be some potential for some other firms to pick up some of the work.
I wish everyone well in the future. lawyers Edinburgh
Law for all gone into administration
A chance for others to pick up the work, times are tough for us all !! I,m sorry that is the problem with the profession, all out to keep themselves in work. No one fighting for what is right!!. Stop trying to live off other peoples misery and do something for the whole profession not just yourself.
How ironic
@Anonymous on Thu, 28/07/2011 - 21:34.
'Stop trying to live off other peoples misery and do something for the whole profession not just yourself....'
How ironic, what do many legal aid lawyers do but live off other people's misery? And this is paid for by the people of this country.
And, one might add, this is misery that is compounded by 'Human Rights laws' that encourage people to increase their dependence on the State. As the ability of people to expect the State to solve all their problems has increased over the last 20 years, so has the demand for legal aid- happily supplied by legal aid lawyers. It is a gravy train that draws on misguided policies.
A couple with jobs cannot get any legal support for their legal needs - an illegal immigrant uninvited to the country and with no job, gets ranks of legal aid lawyers queuing up to help - but only because it is the tax payer who pays for this pointless and un-necessary service.
Sorry if this upsets you, but it is the truth. legal aid has killed itself by losing sight of what it was there for - legal aid was meant to be a last resort - not an industry founded on the principal that this country owes everyone a living - even those who don't come from here.
Thin End of the Wedge
The demise of RMJ IAS and now Law for All is only the start of things to come. It is a myth that social welfare law providers live off the misery of their clients and make a lot of money from it.
Most of our general legal aid work funded by a comtract with the Legal Services Commission actually costs more to provide than we are paid, with the certainty that the fixed fees currently paid to us are set to reduice by 10%. We receive a fixed fee of £174 for each housing case irrepective of whether it costs us £100 or £521. We can claim the actual costs if they are more than £522. Most cases costs more than the £174 but not eneough to generate an exceoptional claim for the actual costs.
Added to this is the fact that the goal posts change all the time and we are now being penalised for work that was previously accepted and money claimed back.
Perhaps when there is no recourse for people to excercise their rights to adequate housing and money to live on and the toll on other services rises, the government will realise how much quality leagl advice saves the tax payer in terms of costs to other departmen ts.
Comments by the inevitably
Comments by the inevitably named "Anonymous" are barely worthy of comment in view of the tremendous service to society provided by Law for All over the years.
However it should be pointed out that Law for All was a best practice model of how a charity could make use of Legal Aid funding through good management of professional and trained voluntary support to provide services for those both inside and outside the Legal Aid safety net. The tragedy is that the Legal Aid cuts and Legal Services Commission now see fit to leave the very poorest and most vulnerable members of the community exposed and without legal representation, and therefore at the mercy of pre-Legal Aid exploitation.
" an illegal immigrant
" an illegal immigrant uninvited to the country and with no job, gets ranks of legal aid lawyers queuing up to help "
Anon 08:57 - please ring round the providers in your area saying that you are an ilegal entrant to the UK without a job or reason to be here. Please come back on here at 6pm tonight listing the ranks of legal aid lawyers ready to take your case under legal aid.
Opinions are great, but they are even better when they are grounded in some sort of factual basis, though I appreciate they are an inconvenience when you want to make groundless assertions. I hope you aint a lawyer, and if you are tell me who are so I dont ever use your services professionally or personally
Legal aid for illegal immigrants
Please see below, official question in Parliament
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department has spent on legal aid for those who entered the UK illegally in each of the last five years.
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 21 December 2010, c1160W)
Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative)
Legal aid in England and Wales is administered by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). For the purpose of granting legal aid, the LSC does not distinguish between those having entered the UK illegally from others seeking legal aid in immigration and asylum matters, or any other matter.
(therefore I think you may be wrong.....illegal immigrants, asylum seekers etc are getting legal aid.)
@anon 11:24 ".illegal
@anon 11:24
".illegal immigrants, asylum seekers etc are getting legal aid"
Thats not for a moment what I was suggesting. The question very much on immigration/asylum cases is about whether indeed the applicant had a legal reason to enter and stay in the UK. Its a bit like suggesting Legal Aid is given to criminals before conviction.
The challenge I set was to list the ranks of lawyers who would be willing and able to take a case where the client stated that they were "an ilegal entrant to the UK without a job or reason to be here"
Anon 10:47
Just hold on there a minute!
I have no brief for Law For All but there demise is the little boy shouting that the emperor is naked!
The were touted for years as an example of a properly run and efficient Legal Aid provider. The LSC applauded them the politicians likewise. Now they crash and burn. Why? because the rate paid is not sustainable.
I do not do Legal Aid and have not in years. All the firms I previously worked at either gave it up or closed up! I struggle to find firms I can refer legal aid work to.
People still need help. Granted it is often, but not always, problems of their own making. In that respect we ALL live off the misery of others.
We need a drastic re-think on the issue of access to justice. (Not another smoke and mirrors cover for LA cuts) there is no point saying the rule of law will protect people when they cannot enlist that protection or that they have rights when they cannot afford to obtain them.
Like most solos/small firms I suspect my pro-bono quota is oversubscribed.
Time for a re think or we return to to the 1930's. Where only the rich can get help.
legal aid for illegal immigrants
The LSC does not distinguish between those having entered the UK illegally from others seeking legal aid in immigration and asylum matters, or any other matter. So there is NO evidence that illegal immigrants are getting legal aid. However, between 2009 and 2011 there were two illegal immigrants who had tried to apply for legal aid but were refused given the fact that they had capital savings of over £2 million.
Why are you censoring this post?
The question is in the title. Why has the Gazette removed both of my comments? My original comment, which was the second comment in this thread, which is also referred to by Edinburgh Solicitors? The second one you have removed followed on from the 'Thin Edge Of The Wedge Post'?
Poor form, Gazette. Very poor form
Last Resort?
@ anonymous 29/7/11 8.57
You are incorrect. Legal aid was NEVER intended to be a last resort. Read Hansard for the debates leading up to the welfare reforms of the late 1940s and you will see how mistaken you are.
Legal aid was ALWAYS intended to place those who cannot afford the cost of their own advice and representation in the same position as those who can - i.e.. on an equal footing.
The fact that the vast majority of ordinary people are unable to obtain legal aid in these times is ENTIRELY due to repeated savage cuts in the eligibility levels by successive governments - Conservative and Labour - since the mid 1980s.
The legal aid budget has been fixed for the last four years at £2.1bn - less than ONE HALF OF ONE PER CENT of government expenditure. In other words, peanuts in relative terms.
It does help to obtain the facts before posting messages on this forum.
Law for All
As a former employee, volunteer (for months unpaid), trainee (working 15 hours a day 7 days a week), I was more than aware the model used by LFA seemed only to be viable using cheap and unpaid labour. Much of the work undertaken for clients was unsupervised. I know this because that was expected from me - within 2 weeks of my training contract I had 30 files, within 1 year I had 200. Quality of work should have been questionable, however the client base more often than not were not In any position to question that work!
The so called not for profit firm threw in the towel a couple of years ago re Immigration, when they established no funding for immigration - the law for all ethos quickly turned to law for quick in and out if funded! The founders of the firm, Ulla and Anna Barlow, quickly jumped ship, when the writing was on the wall re funding. I would say they could no longer sustain the Model as trainee and volunteer staff were already working in excess, there was no more cheap and free labour to be had! I would guess the Barlows did not leave the ship empty handed.
In its hey day there was a high turnaround and quick profit to be made - however over the years LA cutbacks have forced the likes of LFA to come up with it's unsustainable model - highly publicised as the way forward. It would seem to me, that this same model has been used to show others that affordable law is possible for all if you follow this model - reality check came into play - the model only works if you exploit staff an volunteers to work for nothing or on very low pay - firms will understand you might get away with this on a small scale, but for the model to work we are talking mass exploitation!
I feel saddened that many vulnerable people that desparately need a legal voice will be worse off now - and I believe this to be down to the greed of those that knew how to milk the legal aid system whilst it was available for milking!
Bella - "As a former
Bella - "As a former employee, volunteer (for months unpaid), trainee (working 15 hours a day 7 days a week).Much of the work undertaken for clients was unsupervised. I know this because that was expected from me - within 2 weeks of my training contract I had 30 files, within 1 year I had 200".
Working long hours, carrying a high case load and working 6-7 days a aweek is the reality for most graduates looking for a TC. I see you did not complain about being offered a TC and no doubt qualifying as a solicitor? Unless of course you now wish to report yourself to the Law Soc because your training was unsupervised? I don't suppose you wish to surrender your practising certificate and redo your TC? I thought not.So I guess you "milked" the system too.