Closing the gap without using public money

The uncomfortable reality is that access to justice in the UK has become unattainable for millions. A £728m real-terms reduction in legal aid since 2012, persistent court backlogs, and rising demand for legal advice services have hollowed out the system. 

In January 2026 alone, two parliamentary committees expressed concerns over the growing size of the problem. Both the scathing Commons public accounts committee report and the justice committee’s Access to Justice Inquiry hearings laid bare the gaping holes in the justice system. 

As with any discussion on public services, there is a doom-and-gloom perspective that this situation is inevitable – a reflection of the current state of public finances. However, there are, in fact, many existing solutions which could help those desperately needing legal assistance, all without drawing on the public purse. 

These include funding models operating successfully in other countries, or that remain underdeveloped in a domestic context, currently being researched by the University of Oxford’s Centre for Socio-Legal Studies.

There are at least five steps we could take to begin closing the access to justice gap. Each builds on mechanisms that already exist, but which remain underused, undervalued, or inconsistently applied.

1. Increase and recognise the value of legally focused philanthropy 

• Philanthropic funders have previously struggled with funding legal actions due to the inherent complexity and uncertainty of this type of investment. However, there is scope for legally focused philanthropy to produce results more efficiently, and more cheaply, than alternatives. 
• Organisations such as Law for Change are creating new routes for funders to pool and deploy resources strategically, drawing on sound legal expertise. This is a promising avenue for the positive role of philanthropy in society, but it is one which is currently underused. 
• Legally focused philanthropy should be recognised as a core part of the justice infrastructure. This means creating a regulatory environment that enables, rather than discourages, philanthropic support for litigation. In doing so, philanthropy can be reframed not simply as charitable giving, but as a part of society’s risk capital.

2. Consistent rules to redirect unclaimed settlement funds to frontline organisations 

• Undistributed funds from collective action settlements offer a proven way to strengthen access to justice without using public money. 
• In three settlement cases so far, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has recognised the Access to Justice Foundation as an appropriate recipient of unclaimed funds. In the one case where unclaimed funds have been redistributed by the CAT, the foundation subsequently announced a £3.9m grant programme to support legal advice organisations across the UK.
• However, there is currently no statutory mechanism for the destination of unclaimed funds from settlements. This means uncertainty and resources being taken up in deciding how this money is used on a case-by-case basis. (There have so far been multiple hearings on this topic, including a pending judicial review.)  
• Ultimately, these funds, and any future funds that go unclaimed, could provide a much-needed and immediate resource for free or subsidised legal advice services. This includes using unclaimed funds to provide pathways to solutions that will increase take-up rates of collective actions. 
• The government could bring immediate clarity by standardising settlement rules and designating the foundation in the legislation as the recipient of a reasonable proportion of unclaimed settlement funds. This would reduce the burden on the CAT, mirror the approaches taken in other jurisdictions and ensure that unclaimed funds deliver real benefits to the public. 

3. Strategically designed ILCA schemes

• Interest on lawyers’ client accounts (ILCA) is a well-established model internationally, with schemes operating successfully across the US, as well as Canada, Australia and other countries.
• These schemes have been effective in funding civil legal services focused on unmet need, including early advice, outreach, law centres and pro-bono infrastructure. For example, in 2020, ILCA grants in the US produced over $175m in funding for programmes that provide civil legal services to those living in poverty without calling on the public purse. 
• Within this context, it is worth considering the range of possible ILCA models and understanding how they could work in the UK. The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on a proposal to introduce an ILCA scheme in England and Wales. 
• It is important that we recognise the needs of law firms and clients in the consultation. Nonetheless, if a scheme is introduced, the funding should be ring-fenced for access to justice. This means funding deployed strategically to invest in services that generate public savings, build sector capacity and resilience, and achieve genuine added value rather than substituting for legal aid. 

4. Put dormant client monies to work

• Across the profession, significant sums remain held in client accounts that cannot be returned despite reasonable efforts to trace their owners. Under current rules, much of this money remains locked away or donated to a range of different charities. 
• With appropriate safeguards in place, dormant client funds could be redirected towards access to justice causes, providing a stable and ethically sound source of support for legal advice services. 
• Redirecting dormant funds would not weaken client protection. Rather, it would ensure that resources already within the system are used to uphold the system’s core purpose.
• An independent approach to redirecting this funding would be highly effective in targeting unmet needs and preventative approaches. For example, independent grant makers can fund small organisations and support rapid innovation more flexibly, which can be crucial for reaching marginalised groups and testing new service models.

5. Greater use of cost caps in claims against private companies

• For many, a deterrent to seeking justice is not the cost of their own legal representation, but the risk of being ordered to pay the other side’s costs if they lose. Cost caps offer a well-established solution. 
• In certain judicial review cases against public bodies, courts already limit adverse costs, typically at around £25,000. This is high enough to discourage unmeritorious claims, while still being an attainable figure which allows claimants to contribute personally, seek support through crowdfunding, and attract philanthropic backing. 
• Above all, predictability matters. When risk is known and contained, cases can be tested on their merits rather than abandoned out of fear. Cost caps reduce that risk and should be applied across all appropriate cases, and not only in claims against public bodies. 
• Extending their use to actions against private companies, particularly where there is a clear imbalance of power or a wider public interest, would help rebalance and increase access to justice. Corporations could still spend vast sums on legal advice if they choose, but could not abuse that freedom to oppress and deter claimants.

A matter of choice

The access to justice gap has been framed as a consequence of pressure on public finances. In reality, it is largely the result of choices made about risk and regulation. 

There are plenty of solutions that already exist that can begin to close the gap now, which do not draw on the public purse and provide substantial economic benefits in the long-term. 

By taking these steps to strengthen access to justice, we can begin to rebuild a system that works in practice as well as in principle. 

Clare Carter is CEO of the Access to Justice Foundation. Stephen Kinsella OBE is the co-founder of Law for Change, a philanthropic funder of legal actions in the public interest