‘Whole generation’ of lawyers could disappear post-LASPO
Government proposals to slash legal aid have passed through the Commons, amid suggestions the legislation will wipe out specialist lawyers. The bill will now move to the Lords, following a heated debate during which opposition MPs also rejected the suggestion that lawyers are only interested in self-preservation.
Labour MP Valerie Vaz, who worked as a solicitor for more than 20 years in private practice and the public sector, said: ‘I am concerned by the removal of welfare benefit, education and debt recovery cases from the scope of legal aid.
‘Those are the kind of bread-and-butter issues that used to be dealt with under the green form scheme. I wish to reassure members who are concerned that lawyers are in it for the money that we often used to give advice for nothing to people who came through our doors: we went over the time limit but never claimed for it. So we can knock on the head the idea that lawyers are only in it for the money.’
Her brother and fellow Labour MP Keith Vaz added: ‘A whole generation of lawyers with expertise in welfare, immigration and education law will disappear. The only type of lawyers churned out of law colleges will be those who can do corporate litigation.’
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said he was happy for people with disputes or grievances to get general advice and ‘not necessarily the expertise of specialist lawyers’.
And justice secretary Kenneth Clarke accused the legal profession of exploiting vulnerable people to advance their own agenda for preserving legal aid income and no win, no fee agreements.
‘I am a lawyer, and I have the highest respect for lawyers and no intention of offending the legal profession, but in the lobbying of this house and the upper house we have had an army of lawyers advancing behind a front row of women and children - vulnerable claimants who say they would not be represented if they are not paid as much as they are now. I am afraid I do not believe that.’
Comments
Husbands and Brothers
If all you have to worry about after reading this article is the misdescription of Valerie Vaz' relationship to Keith Vaz, you're either an idiot or that moron Djanogly.
Idiots
No, I think you will find that you are the idiot. I got out of Legal Aid private practise years ago, when I saw the way all this was going. Keith Vaz did not speak up about legal aid cuts then but they were being made by your precious New Labour government then. The coalition only followed their lead.
Mistakes
NIce of the Gazette to remove the original mistaken attribution of Keth Vaz as Valerie Vaz's husband. Less good for the Gazette to remove the posting about it. It seems that publicity is only to apply to errant solicitors not errant journalists.
As a quick test of Mr
As a quick test of Mr Djanogly's reasoning, try substituting a different noun e.g:
"Jonathan Djanogly said he was happy for people with [cardiac health issues] to get general advice 'and not necessarily the expertise of specialist [cardiac surgeons.]"
Or
Jonathon Djanogly said he was happy for people with [education or behavioural issues] to get general advice 'and not necessarily the expertise of specialist [teachers.]
He is a liar or a fool. Or both.
Tragi-comic
Tragic: the fate of the poor and vulnerable and of the low-paid lawyers who foolishly chose to help them in the face of indifference.
Comic: The tawdry non-explanations, threadbare non- justifications and fatuous reliance on "belief "by the politicians whose job is purely to cut cut and cut again.
Put them together and what have you got ? Just the new Victorian face of Britain today.
Would this be the sleeping
Would this be the sleeping Ken Clarke who yesterday mentioned that he had left all the legal aid points to be dealt with by the vast expertise of his junior Minister. Explains a lot. Our sleeping Lord Chancellor, the Rip van Winkle of the justice system.
Would this be the sleeping
Would this be the sleeping Ken Clarke who yesterday mentioned that he had left all the legal aid points to be dealt with by the vast expertise of his junior Minister. Explains a lot. Our sleeping Lord Chancellor, the Rip van Winkle of the justice system.
Would this be the sleeping
Would this be the sleeping Ken Clarke who yesterday mentioned that he had left all the legal aid points to be dealt with by the vast expertise of his junior Minister. Explains a lot. Our sleeping Lord Chancellor, the Rip van Winkle of the justice system.
Justice nods
Would this be the sleeping Ken Clarke who yesterday mentioned that he had left all the legal aid points to be dealt with by the vast expertise of his junior Minister. Explains a lot. Our sleeping Lord Chancellor, the Rip van Winkle of the justice system.
Justice nods
Would this be the sleeping Ken Clarke who yesterday mentioned that he had left all the legal aid points to be dealt with by the vast expertise of his junior Minister. Explains a lot. Our sleeping Lord Chancellor, the Rip van Winkle of the justice system.
The Minister has been
The Minister has been consistently misleading the House of Commons in claiming that social welfare law services and clients are all about "general advice" and don't need specialists to assist. The evidence against this is stockpiled in the MoJ in the Civil and Social Justice surveys that LSC's research arm has run for the past decade (not one reference or footnote to this data made in the green paper or any of the policy documents). The Legal Services Report on "Special bodies" (ie not for profit advice providers) also contradicts this assertion.
It's one thing to say that Government is unwilling/unable to fund these services because they don't think ordinary peoples legal issues and needs are important - but it's quite another to base their justification of false assertions that these aren't legal problems at all.