Report reveals flaws in legal aid adviceBy Paula Rohan

One in five civil legal aid clients is receiving sub-standard advice because solicitors do not have the time or money to deal with them effectively, says the most comprehensive analysis of legal aid provision since contracting was introduced.The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies called for higher remuneration for experienced advisers and a more relaxed regime after its two-year study on the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) pilot contracting of civil advice and assistance.

The research focused on 80,000 cases handled by 100 law firms and 43 not-for-profit (NFP) agencies, using a mixture of client questionnaires, assessments by trained 'model' clients, peer reviews and an analysis of quantitative data collected on each case.The study said law firms trail behind their NFP counterparts, which were consistently more likely to score 'above average' on the main criteria.However, the study highlighted a number of 'very worrying' flaws in work done in both private and public sectors.Although 73% of clients said they were satisfied with the service provided, in 19% of all cases providers were not coming up to scratch.

Performance at the first interview was rated as particularly poor in 38% of cases.Problems often began before clients had even met their adviser, with five out of every 33 planned visits to solicitors failing to go ahead because of access difficulties, such as making appointments.

When work began, 36% of advisers did not give an indication of how long the case would take, with a 'significant minority' failing to form a plan of action.The report also criticised the 'inappropriate' lack of work done after the initial interview in 40% of cases, and a failure to refer matters on where appropriate.

The solicitors were broken into three groups to test different methods of payment.

The worst performer was the group paid a fixed sum per annum for a specified number of case starts, touted as 'the closest stepping stone' to controversial competitive tendering.

Results indicated that such tendering would not work at the moment, the report said.

LSC chief executive Steve Orchard said the study vindicated the LSC's fears that tendering in civil work could 'significantly detract' from the aim of providing better quality services.

A spokeswoman added that the findings on time needed and payment would be closely considered.

Law Society President Michael Napier said: 'We welcome the conclusion that firms and agencies which spend longer on cases and allocate them to the appropriate staff are achieving a better quality of result.

Access to good quality legal services for the public is vital - they must be geographically accessible.

The confirmation that quality lawyers produce quality advice simply stresses the need for the Community Legal Service to be properly resourced.' Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, backed the report's conclusion that work needs to be carried out by experienced advisers who are not hindered by time constraints.

He blamed the current situation on 'years of frozen rates of remuneration' along with restrictive guidance and tight limits imposed by auditors.

'This report shows that this trend has been damaging to the quality of advice,' Mr Miller said.