In the summer of 1993 my firm considered whether to seek judicial review of the Legal Aid Board's refusal to grant us funding to begin judicial review proceedings over a refusal to grant legal aid for 200 victims of smoking-related diseases.

Then we seemed a million miles away from ever being able to take action against the tobacco industry itself.

However, by taking the process one step at a time we are now in the position where we hope to be able to commence legal proceedings against the industry in the very near future.Obtaining legal aid in complex actions has become more of a battle over the last five years.

The Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor are desperately trying to find ways of curtailing public expenditure.In the summer of 1992, following the verdict of the US Supreme Court on a tobacco-related action, Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc [1995] US Supreme Court, 24 June, my firm was instructed by the 200 potential litigants.

Our application for legal aid on their behalf to take legal action against five tobacco manufacturers was refused by the designated area office in Newcastle, and by the area committee on two subsequent appeals.

We then applied to the London area office for funding for judicial review of the decision by Newcastle and we applied, simultaneously, for leave to seek judicial review in the High Court.

Leave was granted by Mr Justice Laws but the London area committee still refused the appeal even though the High Court had granted it and the hurdles were similar.We then turned to the Cambridge area office in order to be able to review London's refusal to grant legal aid to review judicially the decision by Newcastle.

When we again obtained leave from the High Court the Legal Aid Board surrendered, agreeing to fund the judicial review against Newcastle.

In the subsequent proceedings Mr Justice Popplewell, in June 1994, quashed the original refusal.

Legal aid was granted to carry out various levels of investigative work in January 1995 but this was not the end of the saga.

Despite the fact that by this time our legal team had spent two years attempting to persuade the board to grant certificates and despite the fact we had done vast amounts of work unpaid, the board decided to put the tobacco work ou t to tender.

It was then another five months before the contract was awarded to our legal team.It might be thought that our experiences on the tobacco cases are an extreme because of the scale and complexity of that action.

However, what has happened on the electromagnetic field (EMF) cases we are currently pursuing shows this not to be true.We were first approached by the Studholme family in February 1993.

They live in Bury, next door to an electric sub station and their son, Simon, who had died at the age of 13 of leukaemia, had slept with his head next to an electric meter with only a stud partition between him and the meter.

Legal aid to investigate the case was refused but the area committee overturned that decision in August 1993.

A year later we had almost completed that work when representations were made by the National Grid.

Having considered our responses the board agreed to allow us to continue with our work.

However, only a few weeks later the lawyers representing the proposed defendants in the Studholme case, NORWEB, submitted a further set of representations to the board.

Despite this second set being almost identical to those made by the Grid the certificates were discharged.On appeal the area committee again overturned the original decision to allow us to complete our investigations and counsel's opinion was sent in last summer.

By this time, although we had three individual cases alongside that of the Studholmes, the board invoked the cost/benefit rule.

With the four individual cases only being jointly worth up to £0.5 million and the defendants having said that they were intending to mount a defence costing millions of pounds, it became clear that the costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

The certificates were once again discharged and once again we went in front of the area committee which agreed that the actions should be pursued toward trial at the end of 1997.The board has a very difficult role to play.

However, legal aid practitioners should not to be so daunted by the hurdles placed in their way that good cases are not pursued.How to get legal aid-- Initial applications must be strongly supported, with the applicants being able to respond to defendants' representations, even though such work can only be done under the green form scheme or for free causing a great strain on any legal aid practice's resources.-- Do not publicise the case prior to the granting of legal aid.

This may mean having to deal with the defendants' representations at this early stage.-- Do not be put off if the area office is negative.

It is now rare in complex cases for an official to grant or extend legal aid without reference to the area committee.-- In an appeal before the area committee a well presented case with a paginated bundle is important.

It ensures the members understand the case and shows the lawyers involved have the knowledge, understanding and efficiency to do the work.-- The board's decision may be open to judicial review.