header-logo header-logo

23 April 2015
Issue: 7649 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Slim election pickings for legal aid

Odds stacked against post-election renaissance for legal aid

The post-election outlook remains bleak for legal aid lawyers, whoever takes charge after next month’s general election.

Writing in NLJ this week, Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, notes that around £600m-£700m has been cut by the coalition government from the legal aid budget over this parliament. “The Conservatives seem committed to more cuts and former legal aid lawyer Sadiq Khan, the Labour Shadow Lord Chancellor, has made it clear that if they form the next government he will not be able to turn back the clock on all the changes to legal aid. Against this background the outlook does not appear optimistic for legal aid lawyers,” he says. Hynes notes that Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has decided to restart the tender process for criminal legal aid solicitors, while Labour has pledged to scrap the tenders if they make a return to government next month.

“This means legal aid firms still have to scurry to draft their tender applications by 5 May deadline, if they want to hedge their bets on the outcome of the election,” says Hynes.

Labour has agreed to look again at the 8.5% fee cut in criminal legal aid the current government plans for July. They will also reverse the changes to judicial review approved by Parliament last month, and have promised that “victims of domestic violence get the legal support they need to break free of violent relationships”. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are committed to carrying out a review of civil legal aid, which could be included in a future coalition agreement.

David Greene, NLJ consultant editor and senior partner at Edwin Coe, says none of the parties likely to form the next government is likely to reverse the rise in court fees, but says there is a “glimmer of hope” that a new government might look again at the concept of hybrid damages-based agreements (DBAs).

Issue: 7649 / 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