header-logo header-logo

How to safeguard access to justice?

19 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Can greater use of technology, pro bono advice and McKenzie’s Friends ever plug the gap in civil legal aid?

A new report by legal think tank Halsbury’s Law Exchange, Can we safeguard access to justice, uses real-life examples and insight from judges and practitioners to examine the state of legal aid provision in England and Wales. It raises interesting questions regarding the future use of technology and changing business practices.

In a foreword to the report, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC invites the reader to imagine a graph depicting the effect of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013). At the beginning of 2013, there are more than 130,000 civil legal aid cases a quarter but by the summer the number has dropped by two-thirds to about 40,000 cases a quarter.

This saves the government money—civil legal aid spending drops 20% from £1,063m to £852m—but leaves people without legal representation, increases the numbers of litigants in person, puts pressure on the courts and reduces the number of lawyers specialising in the affected areas.

The government has responded by investing in technology, with initiatives such as the online court intended to help fill the gaps. Other innovations have helped, for example, a device developed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer that helps law centres keep track of clients with chaotic lives.

However, the report poses difficult questions. Is a McKenzie Friend any substitute for professional legal advice? Who is left to help a woman who develops mental and physical health problems as a result of mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and family but is erroneously classified as not a domestic abuse victim by a system under strain? Practitioners predict a growth in digitally-assisted services and greater cross-over between law centres and grassroots charities such as food banks.

Whatever the future holds, practitioners in the field agree the path is unlikely to be smooth. The report has been published ahead of the Halsbury’s Law Exchange Debate on 22 September at One Great George Street, London, on the same topic.

Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll