Litigants in person set to rise
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.
The Ministry of Justice green paper, published in November, proposes excluding from legal aid all private law children and family matters where domestic violence is not present.
The paper says: ‘We recognise that the proposals to reduce the scope of legal aid will, if implemented, lead to an increase in the number of litigants representing themselves in court in civil and family proceedings. This may potentially lead to delays in proceedings, poorer outcomes for litigants (particularly where the opponent has legal representation), implications for the judiciary, and costs for Her Majesty’s Court Service.’
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.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: ‘There is no doubt that under legal aid cuts, the number of litigants in person will increase. Figures from the government's own impact assessment show the number of family cases funded by legal aid will reduce by 53,000, with mediations increasing by 3,000.
‘Society will be shocked to see our courts thronged by countless individuals unable to have a lawyer, like a scene from Pickwick Papers.’
Elspeth Thomson, Resolution spokeswoman and partner at Newcastle firm David Gray, said: ‘The MoJ recognises that there is little evidence about the impact of an increased number of litigants in person, yet it is rushing headlong into it. More research should be done.’
Comments
Rise in litigants in person
1 Of course there needs to be research into the effect of litigants in person on court time and cost. In a recent debate on legal aid reform on BBC Radio 4 the issue of the £ per capita spend on legal aid was raised. Other jurisdictions spend more on their Justice systems so they work smoothly. Indeed before the Justice Committee recently the LSC recognised that the oft quoted £ per capita figure was not comparing like for like. The Justice committee chair asked for the figures, research and evidence that supported the oft quoted claim by Ministers that the legal aid system in England and Wales is the most generous. I should like to see that information too.
2 Too often we fail to challenge statements of fact made by Ministers and Civil Servants probably because we assume that no-one would dare lie to or mislead us or the public in such an important debate. That view is naieve.
3 This government, just like Labour, concentrates on price and ignores value. So long as something appears to be working then that's fine IF, at the same time, it is cheap. That's why there is such focus on Outcomes and Acts of Assistance and much talk about telephone advice.
4 Labour, the ConDems and the LSC have absolutely no desire whatsoever to speak directly to Solicitors about the Justice systems, about how they are to be funded and how access to those systems can be assured and funded. This allows specific interest groups within our profession to bend the ear of Government so as to gain an advantage over competitors on the promise of delivering Acts of Assistance cheaply and effectively whilst in return seeking distorted market dominance. This is what happened in the recent tender processes. Accreditation, in relation to which there is no evidence that it is an indicator of Quality, was pushed by certain interest groups as a relevant criteria. The ability to bid for types of work and for geographic areas speculatively was encouraged and even now those who did so in crime are supported and encouraged by the LSC and SRA.
5 The Law Society and other so called representative groups have engaged fully with the MoJ, the LSC and the Government of the day to "influence" the debate. What would make more sense would be the Law Society and the so called representative groups telling the MoJ what the agenda had to be before engagement would take place. All that engagement so far has achieved is a gradual decline in the value placed by the MoJ on legal aid and legal aid Solicitors aided and abetted by those in our profession who feel they deserve an advantage over other firms.
This does not make that much
This does not make that much sense really. There would only be an increase is litigants in person if LSC funding is being used to fund cases without merit.
The current proposals are to replace the current LSC funding arrangements with modified CFAs. Therefore if we were willing to run the cases with the LSC funding why would we not be willing to run the cases if we fund ourselves. We have a logical problem here. We should be willing to put our money where many are currently putting the taxpayers.
Legal Aid is important but not for areas that are run for profit. In cases where the losing party pays there should be no need for the state to prop up the profession with payments. However we do need to make sure that the funding remains and is increased for areas affecting an individuals liberty and in cases where child welfare is at stake.
We are in danger of looking like we are trying to protect our businesses at a time when the rest of the economy is feeling the hit from cuts. It will do us no favours in the long run and the professions image is already tarnished enough at present.
The whole problem is that the
The whole problem is that the LSC will stop funding meritorious cases where no legal costs insurance is available in a CFA either, rendering CFAs impracticable (quite apart from the question of insurers wanting cases with "very good" prospects of success as opposed to "moderate" prospects that can still be covered by legal aid). The injustices are horrible to contemplate.
Just heard on the radio that Claimants in group litigation against a US drugs company all lost their legal aid in England due to lack of merit -whereas (a) Scottish claimants in the equivalent cases continue to receive legal aid from the Scottish LSC ! and(b) American Claimants have already received out of court settlements to the tune of $ 4 billion ! These kinds of Injustice will multiply as a direct result of government cuts.
family cases will be the real problem
Family cases where CFAs are not possible and legal aid is withdrawn will IMO be the biggest contributor to the increase in LIPs.