Broken Britain – the lawyers' story

Recent political events have given substance to a sense of national failure. Each of us has a different take on what has brought this about, which tends to be a mix of: the government, Covid and the 2008 financial crisis, Brexit, control of our borders, extremists from various factions, the media, social media - whatever. Over the last few days, the two major parties failed to gain 20% of the vote between them in the Rochdale by-election, and the prime minister felt that he had to make a speech in Downing Street about threats to democracy.

The law has its own distinctive role in Broken Britain. It is similar to scenes from a Dickens novel from over 150 years ago.

On the one hand, court infrastructure is falling apart, there are intolerable delays to civil and criminal court cases, legal aid rates are so derisory that it is impossible to find a lawyer in certain areas. The evidence given by solicitors struggling to provide a criminal legal aid service is tragic, as laid out in the recent High Court judgment won by the Law Society against the lord chancellor.

And, as part of our failure, the gap between poor and rich is large. So, the Gazette reported a couple of weeks ago that newly qualified solicitors at Norton Rose Fulbright could earn as much as £168,000 next year, and that legal sector revenues grew by 7.5% last December 2023 from the same month in the previous year. Growth and success are good; they are part of the solution to our problems. The figures are highlighted not for criticism, but to show the contrasts between the two ends of the profession.

Standing over all is the incredible cost of going to law. It has been normalised, and we take it for granted that many litigants face potential bills for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds.

We can all, as lawyers and as citizens, sit around and wait for the government to do something, as if the solutions lie outside us – we are Vladimir and Estragon in ‘Waiting for Godot’. Even the prime minister, who bemoaned the threats to democracy, seemed unable to offer other than paltry solutions, also waiting for Godot.

I am a general believer in the notion that you cannot save other people, they have to save themselves (not always, of course, and not in all circumstances). Of course, it is true that the legal system lies in the greater eco-system of the state itself, and cannot be saved on its own without other parts working well, too (the prisons, for instance, or Companies House).

The Law Society is trying to get its head around some of the challenges through its 21^st century justice project. This focuses on areas such as improving the alternative/non-court dispute resolution landscape, civil legal aid reforms and making online justice portals work better for end-users.

If implemented, these will make a difference. But the big solutions involve serious state money – and there is no more money, not for the time being, whoever is in charge.

We need to come to terms with the political reality that the government is not going to come to the rescue of our sector, no matter the outcome of the next general election.

For someone who believes in state solutions (like I do), what is the answer?

We have to overcome a lifetime of believing that the state alone has responsibility for the legal system and that it is not for lawyers to help improve it. We have to put aside the fear that any step that lawyers take to improve the legal system lets the government off the hook for its responsibility to fund a decent legal aid service out of taxation. We have to come up with ideas.

Here is one. I note that there is a huge amount of lawyer pro bono work currently undertaken. There is LawWorks, and the incredible range individually undertaken by many of the large City firms, plus the efforts of countless solicitors around the country who help at local Citizens Advice Bureaux and law clinics. The Law Society gives very helpful guidance.

At the moment, this effort is scattered among multiple recipients here and abroad, with each firm and organisation having its own favoured beneficiaries.

But what if there was a national effort to co-ordinate and funnel pro bono on a consistent and organised basis across all the providers to serve those who have no access to legal aid in our jurisdiction - supporting those organisations which already give such help, while not competing with the remaining legal aid firms?

This may be ill-judged and impractical, but it is at least an idea. We need to begin to repair that part of Broken Britain which is our own.

Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society