'Off and running' was presumably a reference to the election, but it might equally have applied to those working in the legal aid system (see [2005] Gazette, 7 April, 14).


Did Roger Smith really say: '[Legal aid] became a smaller area and much harder to make a living in, but that was nothing to do with the government.'?


Not only does it seem out of character, but it is impossible to exonerate the government. Nor does the report offer any evidence to do so.


Would the Lord Chancellor have put in writing such misleading statements as 'My children see their mother, who works exclusively in publicly funded law [and it is] extraordinarily satisfying as a job... The amount of money available has... in other respects, in relation to family law, gone up, and gone up significantly, such as in public law children's work.'?


The wife of the Lord Chancellor is a QC, for whose family her income is supplementary to that of her husband. Her rates are rather different than for the London children panel solicitor whose standard hourly rate is £78.40, which has seen one realistic increase since this government came to power. I appeared in a case recently where a privately funded party obtained costs against a local authority at nearly four times that rate.


The simple facts are that the number of legal aid practitioners is dropping substantially and there are few new entrants to the children panel. It is in the interests of children for there to be a gender balance on the panel, but it is now dominated by women solicitors.


One unreported side-effect of the concentration of legal aid among fewer numbers is that those of us remaining are experiencing a higher number of difficult parties, some in person. That can only serve to reduce still further those prepared to remain in an increasingly stressful field.


David Lammy wrote in the Gazette 'of securing the long-term future of legal aid' (see [2004] Gazette, 9 December, 12). Does anyone believe that? The government's policy in this field clearly demonstrates a determined effort to destroy the legal aid system, so that it can put in its place bureaucratic 'services' removed from private practice. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government is aware that this would be unpopular and has adopted a stealth policy, so that greedy lawyers can be blamed for the demise of legal aid.




Richard White, White & Sherwin, Croydon