header-logo header-logo

18 January 2023
Issue: 8009 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Legal aid proves popular with voters

Members of the public across the three main parties support legal aid, research has shown.

A poll of 2,000 people by the Law Society this month found 84% of Conservative, 95% of Labour and 97% of Liberal Democrat voters in agreement that legal aid is a good thing. It also revealed the public believe legal aid is more widely available than it actually is.

More than half (53%) thought legal aid is available for domestic violence cases, while 73% said it should be available—in fact it is available only if there is an injunction.

Some 44% thought legal aid is available for employment cases and 68% said it should be available, while in reality it is only available for discrimination cases. 42% thought it is available for rented housing issues and 66% said it should be available—in fact it is available only if living conditions are a threat to health or at repossession stage.

The research was conducted in the first week of January, the day after the Ministry of Justice announced the long-awaited civil legal aid review, which is due to publish its final report in 2024.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Services are collapsing now. We cannot afford to wait until 2024 for investment.’

Last week, the Law Society sent a letter before action to the Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab, urging him to increase defence solicitors’ legal aid pay rates or face a judicial review.

Shuja said: ‘What is so frustrating is that a rational policy path was identified in Lord Bellamy’s comprehensive review and largely accepted, including 15% for barristers, but the key recommendation affecting solicitors—who were viewed as being in the most “parlous state”—was rejected.’

While Raab has claimed solicitors are being given a 15% rise, Law Society analysis of the offer found the increase actually amounted to 9%.

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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll