header-logo header-logo

13 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers ambivalent on LASPO

Poll shows lackluster for LASPO

Only one in five law firms thought their business would benefit from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), according to a poll.

LASPO implements Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms to civil litigation, as well as introducing restrictions on legal aid.

Some firms anticipated improvements in cost control (seven per cent) and efficiency (four per cent), and potential reductions in overheads (two per cent), while others welcomed the ban on referral fees (three per cent) and greater transparency (three per cent). A few practices thought there may be some potential to pick up extra business that other firms will no longer handle.

However, two-thirds saw no benefits at all, and one in 10 did not know what the outcome would be, according to the Civil Litigation Costs Review Survey, commissioned by LexisNexis. The 102 survey respondents were selected from purchasers of Cook on Costs, and ranged from sole practitioners to firms with more than 21 partners. Only a few firms expressed concern that they would have to shed staff, or that LASPO would increase their administrative burdens.

Some medium and large practices expressed concern that the Act will help to drive civil litigation overseas. Fewer than half of law practices were actively preparing for the Act, with only five per cent saying they were fully prepared.

Nearly one in 10 firms has changed its business structure, and a quarter of firms have plans to do this. As far as recruitment was concerned, firms indicated there would be more hires than redundancies.

However, the vast majority of lawyers polled believe LASPO will reduce access to justice for the most vulnerable members of society.

Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll