Report comment

Anon 10:28- you are absoulutely right that there is an alternative policy argument to the liberal market trend at the moment, but I do not see how the criticism that lawyers are always "speaking from a position of self interest" is wrong.
The way the legal professions were seemingly rubbing their hands with glee when it looked like the Cotton trials would collapse due to the cuts and consequent unavailability of qualified advocates was a strong example of this. It showed that the priority for the professions will always be to protect the income stream rather than to act in the interests of justice.
Yes, there is a strong policy argument for spending public money on Legal Aid, but that argument needs to include discussions about how best to obtain value for money, and whether many matters can be dealt with by lesser qualified legal advisors.
On a related point, the very idea that a person needs special 'rights' to speak in court is ridiculous. Any litigant should be entitled to select any person of his choosing (including McKenzie friends) to speak for him in court. Anything less is fundamentally undemocratic and a restriction on access to justice.