David Jockelson explains why legal aid lawyers should be positive and keep an open mind when facing the possible prospect of 'supermarket law'


I recently gave evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee. The state of crisis in legal aid was already clear to the committee, as indeed it is to almost everyone.



The committee chairman, Alan Beith, had earlier asked: 'Is ... the government embarking on this ... on the assumption that the entire structure is going to change and that, to over-simplify it, Tesco will send a solicitor to wherever one is needed rather than the traditional pattern of locally based firms?'



Answer: yes. This can sound like a conspiracy theory, but it reflects the current state of total revolution.



A senior advisor to the government is Professor Richard Susskind. His book, The Future of Law, and his later writings are the roadmaps for the 'direction of travel'. Prof Susskind talks of commoditisation - previously high-cost, high-skill, tailor-made legal solutions are replaced with highly systematised, high IT, standardised solutions delivered by far cheaper suppliers. Competition drives down costs. Link this with post-Clementi alternative business structures and you have 'supermarket law'.



Ministers at the highest level - the Treasury and the Department for Constitutional Affairs - must be looking to this as the possible future model to deal with the widespread unmet legal needs that cause huge and unnecessary hardship to clients and burden local and national government. Anticipate the expansion of the Legal Service Commission's direct telephone and Internet helplines, probably outsourced abroad, with public-access points, literally in supermarkets and libraries. Clients are interviewed by less qualified staff using highly developed systems. Easier problems are resolved at that point. More complex problems are referred to more qualified staff with more time including (used sparingly) expensive, fully-qualified specialist lawyers. This could work and be lean and efficient.



We could be cynical and political, adopting the view that this will inevitably be a poor, impersonal service for clients.



Or we could be open minded, robust and sceptical. This could all produce a better system, serving many more people for the same money - but only if two conditions are met. Firstly, if the transition is handled skillfully and the supplier base for that specialist help is preserved to be dovetailed into the new model. Secondly, if the final product is of high enough quality.



It will take careful planning with a proper time scale to design a high quality service, and to do so requires the input of current suppliers. Legal aid practitioners may be suspected of having vested interests and conservative, restrictive practices, but we do know the clients and their needs. The large prospective providers have the dynamism, ideas and systems but they also have major vested interests and little real knowledge. Outside consultants might seem independent, but they too have major vested interests given their multiple roles as suppliers and lobbyists.



The process also needs information from the Consumers Association, from the not-for-profit sector and from university research departments.



Crucially, the government needs to run the debate in an entirely new way - explicitly and transparently. It is too important to be left to untrammelled big business and their lobbyists to design the future of the service.



The present system must be preserved for now. The reforms in crime should be piloted. If they can produce the savings and rebalancing of the budgets Carter was asked to achieve, we will have resources to leave civil and family for a few years during which we can work together on planning a genuinely efficient new legal aid service.



Solicitor David Jockelson is a consultant at London law firm Miles & Partners