Civil justice crisis, AML 'corruption', and mediation reservations: your letters to the editor

Deepening crisis in civil justice

 

On 18 October you reported that thousands of domestic abuse victims will be able to get access to free legal advice and there will be an expansion of early advice for housing cases under new legislative changes announced by the government.

 

We agree the new legislation will enable more people caught up in the civil justice system to have the opportunity of getting proper representation with the benefit of legal aid.

 

In principle, we are pleased to see the introduction of earlier advice under the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS).

 

We do, however, have concerns about the general sustainability of the civil legal aid sector. There are particular concerns about the housing sector and its capacity to provide welfare benefits and debt advice, as there has been deskilling in these areas, which were largely removed from scope in 2013.

 

One change – which the Law Society has long called for – will allow a GP to provide medical evidence for a victim of domestic abuse following a phone or video consultation.

 

Only accepting evidence after face-to-face appointments has been a major barrier for victims during the pandemic, when most appointments have been taking place virtually – a practice that is still continuing.

 

We hope this shift will go some way to making the process more bearable for victims of domestic abuse.

 

However, this move by government is only one part of the solution to a deepening crisis in the civil justice system.

 

The number of family legal aid offices has more than halved over the past decade. Firms have been closing their legal aid departments year on year because it is no longer financially viable to do this type of work. There are widening advice deserts in housing legal aid and the number of providers with civil legal aid contracts has been falling.

 

The Law Society’s legal aid desert maps show that across England and Wales:

 

  • 52m people (88%) do not have access to a local education provider;
  • 40m (67%) do not have access to a local community care legal aid provider; and
  • 23.5m (39%) do not have access to a local legal aid provider for housing advice.

 

The UK government needs to ensure there is a sustainable provider base to undertake this vital work and allocate proper funding and resource to it.

 

Lubna Shuja

President, Law Society of England and Wales

 

Crying ‘corruption’ on AML is not helpful

 

The report by Spotlight on Corruption covered in your article ‘"Privileged” legal sector escapes AML rules, campaign group claims’ is one-sided and polemical. Taking the imposition of fines as the only measure of success or failure in delivering AML compliance is not helpful in providing a complete picture.

 

I’m unsure if the report’s authors actually contacted the legal regulators. They did not contact us but instead chose to quote selectively from our work. Our AML compliance effort saw us reduce instances of non-compliance by 31 August 2021 to just 11 practices. Of those, two were on track for disciplinary action, six were working with their regulatory supervision manager to come into compliance and the remaining three were due an inspection visit for further investigation.

 

This high level of compliance in what is a very demanding area shows the benefits of an assisted compliance approach. We work with firms so that they can bring their operations into compliance quickly once a breach is identified. This serves the public and client interest better than the imposition of a large number of fines. When firms fail to meet our expectations within a short timescale, then disciplinary action is taken.

 

Crying ‘corruption’ on the basis of a few selected statistics is hardly a responsible or effective way to tackle the challenges we all face in the fast-changing field of money laundering and we have written to the authors.

 

Sheila Kumar

CEO, Council for Licensed Conveyancers, London EC2

 

First among equals

 

I was surprised to read in this week’s magazine that acting for first-time buyers on residential conveyancing is ‘boring, undemanding and unchallenging’. These clients are usually making the largest single purchase they have ever made; they are investing hopes and dreams as well as their life savings.  The stress for clients is intensified because so much of the process is outside their control, particularly in a chain transaction. In major cities first-time buyers often purchase leasehold flats, which brings its own complexities. Their lawyers deal with all these issues as well as mortgagees’ requirements and estate agents anxious to book their commission.

 

Only solicitors who truly understand what they are doing can explain it clearly to lay clients. As a junior lawyer I learned many lessons about client service from anxious home buyers which stand me in good stead today. For what it’s worth, my view is that acting for first-time buyers requires bright, organised lawyers of the highest calibre.

 

Residential conveyancers – perhaps busy, underpaid and undervalued. But not bored, under-worked or unchallenged.

 

Suzanne Gill

Wedlake Bell, London EC4

 

 

Mediation reservations

 

This charity warmly welcomes any move which replaces conflict with discussion [in family law].

 

However, there are reservations about mediation, especially at present. It usually causes delay, during which time a parent with day-to-day control of a child can consolidate their position. Second, even with the best intentions, the meetings are between the parents. Their demands may insufficiently correspond to the needs of the children. What is needed is advocacy for them. Third, negotiations are always in the shadow of the law. This comment is sometimes reported by people we support. That their former partner says ‘why should I voluntarily give away what the law will give me’. Until the law is fair and child-centred, the outcomes of mediation will not be either. Especially in the current situation, with long delays and often ‘inequality of arms’ between the parties in court.

 

John Baker

Trustee, Families Need Fathers/Both Parents Matter, London EC2

Topics