Report comment

I note all the worthy comments above trying to justify legal aid in matrimonial cases, however I still find myself agreeing with Marshall Hall above. I've practised as a matrimonial Solicitor with the benefit of legal aid myself in the past though I no longer do so. It used to horrify me how couples would argue the toss indefinitely and take small points they wouldn't have dreamed of pursuing if they'd had to pay the full costs themselves. I began to feel like their lackey, having to respond to and pursue all their often trivial and sometimes extreme whims and fancies. "Well can't we do this then?" I don’t see why this nation should be expected provide at public expense expert representation for squabbling couples or translators in a multitude of different languages. Of course it's hard on the judges, but if we didn’t have laws which provide such a wide discretion to judges to decide matrimonial financial disputes, then parties would be more able to reach their own agreements within a predetermined framework or according to a formula. After all, behaviour isn't supposed to be a factor in most cases. This has been mooted in the past. Now there is little legal aid available, perhaps it should be given more serious consideration.