header-logo header-logo

Family legal aid warning

07 October 2010
Issue: 7436 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

High Court victory tempered by questions over future progress

The family legal aid tendering round was “unfair, unlawful and irrational”, the High Court has ruled.

The judgment, delivered last week by Mr Justice Moses, quashes the outcome of the recent tender round, under which firms bid against each other for a share of available legal aid work. The result, due to be implemented next week, would have seen the number of firms contracted to supply family legal aid cut from 2,400 to 1,300.

Family law firms that had a contract with the LSC prior to the tendering round will now continue for an as yet unspecified time.

The Law Society brought the judicial review, R (Law Society) v Legal Services Commission, after lawyers warned the cuts would lead to a legal advice shortfall among many members of the public.

A jubilant Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said the court win was a victory for “thousands of families”. The tendering round “would have translated into thousands of people facing grave difficulty in obtaining justice—ordinary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll