LSC cuts 'put clients at risk'

CIVIL LEGAL AID: solicitors warn they may be forced to reject work because of funding shortfall

Fears are growing among civil legal aid solicitors that a tightening of the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) purse-strings will force them to turn clients away until the next round of funding comes in spring 2003.

The problem emerged after firms reported that the LSC has been refusing to fund new matter starts once they had reached the limit under their contracts until the new financial year begins.

Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) director Richard Miller confirmed: 'We have had a number of reports from firms that requests for additional matter starts have been refused, mainly in respect of tolerances but in some cases in respect of their main contracted fields.' Tolerances are where firms with contracts are allowed to undertake work in certain categories of law, even though they do not hold contracts in these subjects.

Wendy Hewstone, partner at Southampton-based Hannides Hewstone & Co, said it had seen two requests for extensions fail, and had been told by the LSC that the budget was fixed and increases in case starts would be 'extremely unlikely'.

East London-based sole principal Eve Wee said her firm in east London had only a small number of matter starts to last it between now and April.

'How are we to sit down and work out how much money we need for the firm to survive if the goalposts keep being moved?' she demanded.

An LSC spokesman said it was not allowed to exceed its allocated budget for civil work, but added that all applications for new matter starts were decided on their merits and according to its regional legal services committee strategy.

The concerns comes a week after Public Accounts Committee chairman Edward Leigh indicated that he was ready to recommend a clampdown on civil firms following a National Audit Office report which found that 35% were over-claiming by at least one-fifth (see [2002] Gazette, 28 November, 1).

'Persistent over-claimers must be removed, but the process for doing so is currently far too slow,' he argued.

But in a letter to Mr Leigh, the LAPG said: 'Only a tiny minority of firms are charging, either through poor systems or dishonesty, for work that has not been properly carried out for eligible clients.'

See editorial, page 16 (see [2002] Gazette, 5 December)

Paula Rohan