header-logo header-logo

08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers hope for permanent legal aid delay

Controversial reforms to civil & family law delayed until spring 2013

Lawyers have called for the delay in the legal aid reforms to be made permanent.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke announced last week that the reforms to civil and family law legal aid are to be pushed back six months from next October to April 2013. The proposed reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill remove legal aid from several areas of law, including clinical negligence, private family work, debt, benefits, housing and employment.

However, the parts of the Bill relating to Lord Justice Jackson’s civil costs reforms remain on schedule.

A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson said: “As things stand, there are no changes to the timetable for implementation of civil costs reform.”

David Greene, a partner at Edwin Coe, says: “We can only hope that the barrage of criticism of these cuts to legal aid at the Lords stage of the Bill has had some permanent effect.

“If the government actually proposes to abandon the cuts, Ken Clarke should have the gumption to say so, rather than leaving many in a state of unknown. If the delay hides a climbdown, this is good news for access to justice for a significant section of society.”

According to the MoJ, the legal aid reforms have been delayed in order to give 12 months for a full contract tender process to take place once Parliament has confirmed the precise content of the Bill, which is unlikely to receive Royal Assent earlier than March 2012.

An MoJ spokesperson said: “New contracts to provide civil and family advice will be offered to lawyers in April 2013, which will give them sufficient time to consider the final details of the new legal aid scheme, which Parliament is expected to agree in spring 2012.”

Legal groups vowed to continue their campaign against the Bill, which moves to committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 December.

Issue: 7493 / 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