News
Litigants in Person
Could Struggle to Secure
Access to Justice
Thursday 19 January 2012
by Grania Langdon-Down, Law Society Gazette
The prospect of a huge increase in litigants fighting their cases themselves in the face of legal aid cutbacks has prompted dire warnings from judges, magistrates, practitioners and support groups about the impact this will have on access to justice. They also fear that HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s plans to cut counter services will create chaos, particularly in the family courts, with litigants in person (LiPs) left struggling for information. While more online services may help fill the gap, support groups warn that many vulnerable LiPs do not have access to computers or know where to turn for advice.
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) recent report on the situation pulls no punches: ‘It is hard to overstate just how difficult it can be - for the person, for the court and for other parties - when someone self-represents.’ And the CJC’s message for ministers is unequivocal. Even if its recommendations for both immediate and longer-term action are acted upon, many people will still be denied justice. ‘There must be no misunderstanding about this,’ it states. ‘Put colloquially, the recommendations are about making “the best of a bad job”.’
After intensive lobbying, the government postponed the implementation of the legal aid reforms. But the pressures imposed on and by LiPs - or self-represented litigants as the CJC prefers to call them - are already causing huge problems.
So what steps should be taken to provide better support? There is conflicting feedback. Some LiPs say judges are so unhelpful it is difficult to get a fair hearing, while some practitioners say judges are bending over so far backwards to help LiPs that represented clients are being unfairly treated.
Practitioners are also concerned about how far they are expected to go to help LiPs, as judges turn to them to explain orders, what will happen at future hearings and even prepare their trial bundles. The CJC report proposes guidance on what should be expected of a practitioner, while the Law Society is preparing to issue a practice note on their professional duties. The Bar Standards Board has seen such an unprecedented increase in complaints from LiPs that, although most are dismissed, it plans to conduct a thematic review early this year if the trend continues to identify any learning points for the bar or the wider court system.
In the family courts, judges and court staff are already struggling to cope. District Judge Nick Crichton, who sits in the Inner London Family Proceedings Court, sums their predicament up in one word: ‘horrendous’. ‘Where do I start?’ he says. ‘We are getting more and more people coming to court in private law cases without the benefit of sensible, structured legal advice, wanting to spill blood on the court carpet. Angry with each other, they shout across the court, they refuse to listen when you try to calm them down and it is very difficult to find a solution that they will go away and work with.
‘The government wants people to stay out of court but it is very difficult to get people to mediate when they are still very angry and haven’t had the benefit of decent legal advice. These cases take an inordinate amount of time, which is having a knock-on effect on public law cases getting before a judge.’
Firm case management is essential, he says, but adds: ‘It is difficult for judges who work on a rota basis to build up the confidence or experience to be robust. They are worried about not giving LiPs their article 6 rights and being appealed. But I think we are getting better at case management and people are feeling more confident that they will be supported.’
The prospect of even more LiPs in the family courts has also raised concerns that violent partners may use the courts to bully their victims.
Resolution has pressed hard on this point. David Emmerson, chair of its legal aid committee, says that, without the same rules as in criminal cases, victims could face the menacing experience of being cross-examined by an abusive partner. ‘It is very important in that scenario that both sides are legally represented,’ he says. The Magistrates’ Association family court committee has been calling for the definitions of domestic violence to be widened to protect victims. Chair Steve Matthews condemns the legal aid reforms as ‘short-sighted’, adding: ‘Some people will be put off pursuing their cases at all. In contact cases, this could lead to injustice not only for them but also for their children.’
For those that do bring cases, the result is increased delays in getting to court and reaching final decisions. ‘Magistrates are taught how to help LiPs as part of their case management training,’ he says, ‘but it is important we don’t end up acting effectively as their advocates.’
Judges have a duty to ensure a level playing field, says Newcastle-based matrimonial lawyer Caroline Goorney, but the situation is becoming ‘really unbalanced’, she says. ‘Judges bend over backwards to accommodate LiPs, no matter how difficult they are being. But that is at the expense of the represented client. If there is anything to be done procedurally they tend to look at me. Who is going to pay me for that?’ She describes how distressing it is for her clients when faced by an unrepresented former partner. In one case, her client’s ex-husband twice tried to bring his new wife into the hearing as a Mackenzie Friend.
The onus is being put on the private sector to pick up the pieces, she says, and the ‘disgruntlement’ among lawyers is enormous. ‘I would seriously consider advising a client who is confident to attend a straightforward procedural hearing on their own, so the judge deals with them on equal terms.’
Senior judges are aware of the problem. The Judges Council submission on the legal aid reforms said judges are having to tread a ‘careful line’ in ensuring LiPs understand proceedings and that their human rights are safeguarded, while making sure the other party does not feel the judge is biased against them.
Asked if there are plans for enhancing training, a Judicial Office spokesman said: ‘The subject of LiPs already arises within the training provided by the Judicial College. It is very much linked with equal treatment issues and vulnerability, which permeates induction and continuation training in similar ways. Judges will look to find best practice as they share their experiences and to develop their judicial skills through role play and case studies.’
Emmerson, a consultant at TV Edwards, is also a part-time district judge. He says the Judicial College needs to look at a programme of strategies for dealing with LiPs, especially where both sides are representing themselves. ‘I sat in a county court case involving a small- claims building dispute and spent nearly two hours before I could start putting all the documents in order.
‘With no money for better IT or more judges, it is going to be important that judges exercise firmer case management.’
One option the CJC report suggests is for solicitors, barristers and legal executives to sell small amounts of their time or take on one or two defined pieces of work in the course of a case. One practice, it says, charges £7 for five minutes of advice. The report says this should not be prevented by regulatory barriers, as long as there are safeguards against exploitation.
Neil McDougall, who defended himself in a small-claims case, says ‘dipping in and out’ legal advice would be useful. ‘But the problem is that LiPs don’t have the same standing in hearings as lawyers,’ he adds. ‘The important advice is tactical, and I fear that it is easy for a solicitor to recommend a particular course of action without recognising that a judge may treat the LiP very differently.’
Add in new insurance products and alternative business structures and the CJC report observes: ‘It is entirely possible that more people will be able to afford at least some access to legal services. The choice for the litigant may move from self-represented or lawyer-represented to self-help, or lawyer-review, or lawyer-led.’
Peter Smith, managing director at FirstAssist, says many people have access to legal advice through their motor and household policies. ‘Half of home owners have BTE insurance as part of their household policies for many civil disputes, but many don’t understand what they have got.’
The costs risk is critical for both sides. In an appeal last year - French v Groupama Insurance Company Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1119 - the claimant LiP, who later instructed solicitors, won her case but faced paying all the defendant’s costs because of confusion over a pre-litigation offer. Finding for her, the appeal judge said the fact that she was initially an LiP was a relevant factor.
Masood Ahmed, senior law lecturer at Birmingham City University, says the case is a salutary lesson for practitioners to ensure that LiPs understand part 36 offers or both sides risk adverse cost consequences. Learning that an opponent is going to self-represent is increasingly a factor in assessing the risk of defending a claim, says Emmerson. ‘The prospect of long delays and extra cost can give the LiP the upper hand, as defendants may decide it is cheaper to buy the case off than fight it.’
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
|
Mirror Wills Invalidated
by Signature Mix-Up,
Appeal Judges Rule
Thursday 02 February 2012
by Jonathan Rayner, Law Society Gazette
A simple mix-up when a husband and wife signed mirror wills 13 years ago means they have no value in law, the Court of Appeal ruled today. The ruling disinherits the couple’s intended heir and has left lawyers calling for a more flexible approach to probate law.
In 1999 Mr and Mrs Alfred Thomas Rawlings signed mirror wills that they believed would leave their entire estate to one another or, when they were both dead, to Terry Michael Marley - who was not related to them, but whom they treated as their son.
However, because of a mix-up Mr Rawlings signed the will meant for his wife and she signed the will meant for him. Nobody noticed the mistake until Mr Rawlings, who had survived his wife by three years, died in August 2006.
A dispute then arose between Marley and the Rawlings’ two sons, who argued that their father’s will had been signed by the wrong person and so was not valid.
The High Court agreed, saying that it was not in its power to change the will, even though there was no doubt that the Rawlings had wanted Marley to inherit. It ruled that Rawlings had died intestate and that the sons should inherit the estate. The Court of Appeal today upheld that decision, one that Lady Justice Black, president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said she had ‘reached with great regret’.
Matthew Duncan, a private client partner at City firm Kingsley Napley, said: ‘Today’s decision is disappointing. The courts seem unwilling to step outside the letter of law when judging highly emotive cases involving inheritance. It is obvious that the wills were signed in error and that the couple’s intentions were absolutely clear. This case cried out for a pragmatic decision but, sadly for Mr Marley, it was not to be.’
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Law Society Outlines Initiatives
to Reinforce Access to Justice
Thursday 02 February 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
The Law Society vice-president has outlined initiatives to bolster access to justice following the government’s proposed legal aid reforms - but stressed that Chancery Lane has not given up its opposition to the cuts.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff told the Law Society Gazette that the Society has given ‘a lot of thought’ to what can be done if scope cuts in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill go ahead. She highlighted a scheme in which law students help people claiming benefits and called on City firms to take on ‘strategic cases’ on a pro bono basis.
The student scheme, to be piloted by the College of Law in York in conjunction with the Society and pro bono organisation LawWorks, involves accompanying claimants to ‘work capability assessments’ carried out for the Department for Work and Pensions. The students will take a note of what happens during the assessment to provide evidence for use in any appeal.
Scott-Moncrieff said: ‘We are concerned at the growing evidence that people with disabilities are not getting the benefits that the government has deemed they are entitled to.’
In a related move, she said the Society hopes to work with students at Northumbria University to produce standard letters to GPs advising them of the information they should provide to assist assessments. ‘We are trying to make sure that decisions are not appealed so that claimants don’t need a lawyer,’ said Scott-Moncrieff.
The Society is also hoping to collaborate with City firms that have a commitment to pro bono work to take strategic cases and group actions against public bodies, including the government, where there have been breaches of domestic commitments and obligations under international treaties.
Scott-Moncrieff said many civil legal aid cases arise from poor decision-making by public bodies, a problem that will get worse as public bodies shed staff. She said the Society had started talking to two City firms that have expressed an interest.
The schemes were outlined in a speech to Northumbria University entitled ‘What shall we do without legal aid?’ in which Scott-Moncrieff proposed ways to counter threats to access to justice. Dismissing as ‘highly unlikely’ the government’s claim that pro bono lawyers and non-lawyer volunteers would fill the gap, she said that the proposed cuts require a rethink of how all parts of the profession can work together to mitigate their effects.
But she also said: ‘We haven’t given up on LASPO. We will continue our opposition to the bill and we hope it will lead to changes.’
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Restrict Title to Fight Fraud,
Land Registry Urges
Thursday 02 February 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
Property owners are being encouraged to register a restriction requiring a solicitor to certify their identity as homeowner before their property can be sold, in the Land Registry’s latest move against property fraud.
From this month, the Registry’s Form LL restriction will be free for absent property owners. The restriction requires a solicitor or conveyancer to certify they are satisfied that the person selling or mortgaging the property is the true owner. The £50 fee for owner-occupiers to register the restriction will remain.
Empty properties, where the owner is abroad or in a care home, are among the most vulnerable to fraud, according to the Registry, which pays compensation to genuine owners in cases where a registered title has been fraudulently transferred. In 2010, 23 of the 71 claims it paid out for fraud and forgery involved properties with an absent owner, accounting for £2m of £7.3m paid in total.
Chief registrar Malcolm Dawson said: ‘We take the issue of fraud very seriously and work closely with other organisations including the Law Society to do all we can to reduce the opportunities for fraud and to identify and take corrective action when it has happened.’ He said that since September 2009 the Registry had prevented frauds in over 100 applications, involving properties valued at more than £47m.
Meanwhile, new monthly Land Registry transaction figures show that during October 2011, the number of completed house sales in England and Wales fell by 6% compared with the same month in 2010. In December 2011, the agency’s top two customers by number of transactions were licensed conveyancers - My Home Move, with 977 transactions and Countrywide Property Lawyers, with 857. Third in the league table is Stockport firm O’Neill Patient, with 418 transactions. In all, the Registry received over 916,000 applications in December 2011.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Law Centres Warn
on Legal Aid Cuts
Thursday 02 February 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
Law centres will close, leaving ‘many thousands’ of the poor and marginalised without access to justice if the government’s legal aid cuts are implemented, peers have warned.
In a short debate this week, Labour’s former legal aid minister Lord Bach asked what assessment the government had made of the implications for law centres of legal aid cuts. Bach said that taking social welfare law out of the scope of legal aid would reduce by 86% the funding that law centres receive to provide advice or ‘legal help’.
This, he said, will ‘inevitably’ cause law centres to close and leave ‘many thousands of people, often the poor and marginalised’ without access to justice, which would end up costing taxpayers more due to unresolved escalating problems. Such an ‘absurd’ and ‘wrong’ move, would make the country ‘less just and less civilised’.
Justice minister Lord McNally rejected the ‘worst-case scenario’ presented by Bach. He said the government’s equality impact assessment indicated the likely costs and benefits of the reforms.
Responding to a question from Conservative peer Lord Mackay of Clashfern, McNally agreed that law centres were the most efficient and economical way of providing advice for those who are less well off.
He accepted that the reforms will have an impact on the not-for-profit sector, and said that in recognition of that the government had provided £107m in transitional funds and an additional £20m to help the sector restructure.
Commenting afterwards, the director of the Law Centres Federation, Julie Bishop, said the government seemed to regard the disproportionate impact of the cuts on the disadvantaged as ‘acceptable collateral damage’.
She said: ‘Law centres are disappointed that Lord McNally, yet again, did not address the question but simply referred critics to the Ministry of Justice impact assessments,’ which show that vulnerable groups will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the cuts.’
Bishop said the demand for social welfare law advice has been rising during the economic crisis, while the supply has been eroded. ‘Considering the UK’s current economic performance and predictions of its further deterioration, this is not the time to abandon people losing their jobs and homes through no fault of their own. Lord McNally must not pretend that this is not happening,’ she said.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Friday 20 January 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
The government has made its first tiny concession in the House of Lords debate on proposed legal aid reforms, agreeing to table a ‘technical amendment’ to ensure all special educational needs (SEN) cases remain in scope.
But justice minister Lord McNally gave little hope that other changes will be made as the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill goes through the committee stage in the Lords.
On Wednesday, the fourth day sitting in committee, the small concession followed an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones (pictured) to ensure that young people aged between 16 and 25 with SEN continue to be eligible for legal aid when appealing against decisions made about special educational provision.
Currently the bill makes provision for cases to be covered only for children under 16.
Clement-Jones said: ‘Removing access to legal aid for young people aged 16 to 25 with SEN, as the bill currently does, is inconsistent with the government’s position on the importance of the rights of young people with SEN.’
‘I trust that this is an oversight rather than a deliberate move to exclude these young people with SEN from the scope of legal aid.'
Responding for the government, Liberal Democrat Lord Wallace of Tankerness said the intention is to cover all matters that can legitimately be classed as SEN issues, and promised a technical amendment at the report stage.
Several peers including a former president of the Family Division, Lady Butler-Sloss, a former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and a former attorney general Lady Scotland, called for a wider definition of domestic violence, to prevent victims being denied access to legal advice and representation. Macdonald warned that the bill’s approach to domestic violence risked ‘rolling back decades of progress’ in understanding the crime that he called ‘an absolute scourge’.
He said: ‘We must have a bill with the modern definition of that crime and including provision for those who may be too scared or too desperate to call the police. As we all understand, domestic violence brings a cycle of damage and despair that is deeply destructive and anti-social.’
McNally said he would look at the arguments that had been made and ‘think very hard’ about the issues before the report stage.
Responding to another amendment tabled by Butler-Sloss, to provide legal aid for victims of trafficking, Tankerness said other avenues were available to give help, including the exceptional funding scheme in the bill and government-funded support provided by the Salvation Army.
Other amendments were met with the government’s argument that it has to prioritise funding. McNally confirmed that domestic child abduction cases are not within scope because they do not have the complexity involved in international cases.
The bill is back before the committee on Tuesday, when amendments relating to exceptional funding arrangements, police station advice, the telephone gateway and technical issues relating to the decision-making powers and processes, will be among issues debated.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Tuesday 17 January 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
A ‘strong consensus’ and a ‘commitment to a change in culture’ is needed to improve the efficiency of the family justice system, according to the senior judge charged with reform. In his first published update since being appointed to lead the modernisation of family justice, Mr Justice Ryder sets out a ‘challenging timetable’ to agree proposals on a programme to put in place the recommendations of the Norgrove review by the time his appointment ends at the end of July.
Key areas for work include governance, the unified court, judicial deployment, gatekeeping and allocation and case management. The programme will also draw up a plan for common training and guidance materials.
Ryder said that the judiciary will be expected to consider, among other issues, ‘delay, a culture change in respect of the management of children cases and the use of experts, judicial continuity, case progression, compliance and enhanced interdisciplinary working and training.’
He added: ‘I am convinced that, for further change to be effective, there will need to be a strong consensus and a commitment to a change in culture from all who contribute to the family justice system.’
Ryder’s post was created following the publication of the interim findings of the Norgrove review in May 2011, which identified the need for a judicial lead to implement change. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, approved the formation of the Family Business Authority as a committee of HM Courts and Tribunals Service to make decisions in relation to the family justice system.
Ryder said the pace of work will accelerate when the government publishes its response to the Norgrove review, expected in the next few weeks. He said representative groups will need to be ‘listened to again’ with their ideas on the workstreams, leading to draft guidance and plans. Proposals will also need to be considered with senior colleagues in other jurisdictions because of the impact they may have on the work of other courts.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Thursday 12 January 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
The Law Society’s family law committee has cautioned against introducing a legal presumption of shared parenting after divorce, following indications that the government may seek to change the law.
Children’s minister Tim Loughton has said that the government is ‘looking closely at all the options for promoting shared parenting through possible legislative and non-legislative means.’ He said: ‘Our vision is to establish that, under normal circumstances, a child will have a relationship with both his or her parents, regardless of their relationship with each other.’
A statutory presumption of shared parenting following divorce or separation was considered but rejected in the Family Justice Review, led by former civil servant David Norgrove, published last November. Norgrove said such a change risked creating a presumption of a parental right to shared time, undermining the principle of paramountcy of the welfare of the child set out in the Children Act 1989.
Naomi Angell, co-chair of the Law Society’s family law committee, said the committee would oppose a presumption of shared time, though it supported the idea of maintaining contact with both parents where safe to do so. The right to contact should be viewed from the child’s perspective, Angell said.
The Ministry of Justice said it will publish its response to the Norgrove review shortly.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Monday 09 January 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
Removing legal aid for private family cases could lead to thousands of children losing contact with a parent and many families being left dependant on welfare benefits, family lawyers warn today.
In a renewed attack on provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) bill, which resumes the process of scrutiny by the Lords tomorrow, Resolution, a group representing family lawyers, has voiced concern about potentially ‘devastating’ consequences.
A survey of members showed widespread concern about clients losing the right to legal aid: 87% of the 267 respondents said that fewer than 25% of their current clients would qualify for legal aid if the bill is enacted.
More than half (57%) of the respondents believed the change would create the risk of a parent losing contact with their child in at least half of cases. Based on the surveyed lawyers alone, this would amount to 4,000 children a year.
The bill withdraws legal aid from many parents trying to get back children who have been abducted within the UK, which 91% of those surveyed said was a risk in some of their cases.
Resolution’s chair David Allison said: ‘Many of those currently eligible for legal aid would seriously struggle to obtain the legal advice and support that could ensure that they continue to see their children after a difficult separation.’
Allison said the changes risk increasing the nation’s benefits bill, as parties, who without legal advice would be unaware of their financial entitlement, may be left dependent on welfare benefits.
Family lawyers were also concerned that the government’s drive to steer parties towards mediation could leave many disadvantaged.
Nearly all respondents (94%) were concerned that 75% of their clients would not be able to reach a settlement without legal advice and would not know if a settlement was fair.
Those surveyed highlighted the benefit of legal advice, with 42% saying it meant that at least half their cases settled without going to court, while 74% thought their ability to negotiate with the other party meant at least half their cases settled before the final hearing.
In any event, of the current legal aid cases of those surveyed, 41% had been assessed as unsuitable for mediation.
Allison said: ‘We are concerned that by focusing so heavily on mediation, the government will punish those for whom it simply won’t work through no fault of their own - for example, if they have an abusive or uncooperative partner.’
He urged the government to rethink the cuts and reconsider other measures, such as extending the statutory charge to cover other areas of family law, to ensure access to justice.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Monday 09 January 2012
by Catherine Baksi, Law Society Gazette
Planned cuts to legal aid in private family work, social welfare law and clinical negligence will save less than half the sum predicted by the government, according to an independent economic study published today. The Law Society’s chief executive, Desmond Hudson, said the report’s findings ‘fatally undermine’ Ministry of Justice claims about savings to be achieved by measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill, which resumes Lords scrutiny tomorrow.
In the report, Unintended Consequences: the costs of the government's legal aid reforms, Dr Graham Cookson from King’s College London’s department of management, suggests that the legal aid cuts will have significant knock-on costs and are ‘unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing the fiscal deficit'.
Cookson’s economic analysis examined the likely impact of the cuts in three areas - private family law, social welfare law and clinical negligence, which the government claims will save £239m a year. He found that these elements of the proposals could cause unintended extra costs of at least £139m, realising a net saving to the public purse of £100m, less than half (42%) of the government’s predicted figure.
Cookson added: ‘Numerous costs could not be estimated, and this figure is therefore likely to be a substantial underestimate of the true costs.’
He said: ‘At approximately 42% of the predicted savings, this level of saving would make an insignificant contribution to the total spending cuts of £81bn per year that the government seeks to implement by 2014/15. The report concludes: ‘This undermines the government’s economic justification for the changes, especially given the numerous costs that could not be estimated.’
It finds that removing legal aid for clinical negligence will cost the NHS £28.5m a year, almost three times more than the predicted £10.5m saving.
Knock-on expenses include the cost of the telephone triage service, the after-the-event premium for expert fees and reports, and the 10% damages premium paid in all successful cases, which will largely be borne by the NHS through the NHS Litigation Authority.
The report estimates knock-on costs of £100m per year for removing legal aid for private family law cases, set against a proposed budget saving of £170m, resulting in a saving of roughly 40% of the government’s forecast. Mediation will be the single largest area of expenditure, with a knock-on cost of £42m per year. Other costs include £2m towards the telephone gateway, £22m for the increased use of alternative advice services, £8m for exceptional funding of cases and £3m due to problems caused by stress for those who give up trying to solve legal problems.
The report suggests that the increase in the number of litigants in person will generate a knock-on cost of £273.50 per person, which will cost over £7m in private family law matters. Cuts to social welfare law, which the government expects to save £58m a year, will have knock-on costs amounting to £35.2m, generating a saving of 39% of those predicted by the government.
The MoJ’s own impact assessment identified a number of potential knock-on costs, including reduced social cohesion, increased criminality, reduced business and economic efficiency, and increased costs to other departments. But, as the King’s College report notes, the MoJ has identified neither their magnitude nor likelihood.
The report says that the ‘far-reaching’ unintended consequences of the cuts will in part be borne by the MoJ, principally through increased costs to the court service, costs of mediation and the implementation of the telephone gateway. Costs will also be faced by other government departments, led by the Department of Health.
Another key finding of the report was the lack of robust data on numerous elements of the civil justice system, for example on the costs and productivity of the family courts. It points to ‘significant gaps’ in the evidence base justifying the reforms.
The author calls on the government to estimate the impacts fully before implementing any reform, and to carry out an appraisal of knock-on costs before changes are enacted. The report adds: ‘Given the largely negative response to the consultation exercise, the government should re-evaluate the justification for the legal aid scope changes.’
The Law Society commissioned the report in June 2011 in response to the government’s failure to assess the costs to public spending of its proposals to withdraw legal aid from two thirds of the civil and family cases that currently qualify.
The report is being given to members of the House of Lords who resume their consideration of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill tomorrow.
Among other amendments, peers are expected to debate a delay to the legal aid reforms in the Bill until the government publishes an assessment of the wider costs they will cause for taxpayers.
Hudson said: ‘The MoJ has defended swingeing cuts to legal aid in civil cases, which will deny justice to thousands, on its need to contribute savings to the government’s deficit reduction programme. The Law Society accepts the need to achieve savings, but this report fatally undermines the MoJ’s savings claims, and shows they are being achieved at the expense of other parts of government.’
Hudson said: ‘This is kamikaze accounting and will do little to tackle the deficit while sacrificing access to justice.’
Read the report.
©2012 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
Wednesday 21 December 2011
by John Hyde, Law Society Gazette
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has urged firms to take care with vulnerable clients and uphold standards even if legal aid cuts are in force.
The SRA believes the risk of standards falling may increase if the government’s legal aid changes are introduced. The authority’s press release said the SRA was ‘particularly alive’ to the risks of the most vulnerable members of society not receiving the right service.
Appropriate client care is a key requirement in the new outcomes-focused regulation regime and the SRA is now calling on solicitors to maintain high standards.
Samantha Barrass, SRA executive director, said: ‘Firms need to think carefully about how to deliver an appropriate approach to client care for those who may be vulnerable for any physical, social, or psychological reasons.’
She added: ‘We think at least some firms already need to consider their systems and processes with this in mind.’
Compliance under the new rules, Barrass said, did not mean dealing with all clients in the same way, but instead adapting their methods to fit the needs of the individual. Principle five of the new code of conduct deals with the standard of service to clients, while a number of listed outcomes add more detail about how this should be achieved.
©2011 The Law Society. All Rights Reserved.
__________
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 25 |
|
|
