header-logo header-logo

13 June 2012
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Specialist support service to end

LSC to close its specialist support service in July

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is to close its specialist support service, through which law centres, legal aid law firms and legal advice agencies can telephone a legal expert for help.

Current contracts for the service are due to end on 30 June, but the scheme has been extended by another week to give the service time to wind down.

The service provides “second-tier support” via telephone and e-mail to advice agencies and legal aid law firms working in the areas of welfare benefits, housing, debt, employment, community care, immigration, mental health and public law.

It was set up in 2008, and cost the LSC between £1.1m and £1.65m to run annually. While the largest contractor worked double the hours expected, five of the other eight contractors reported under-usage of the service.

The LSC had planned to close the service in March, but backed down after the Public Law Project issued judicial review proceedings. It then extended the contracts for a further three months and launched a consultation.

Last week, however, the LSC announced the end for the service, saying that, having considered the response to its consultation, it had decided there were suitable alternatives for dealing with complex queries, such as instructing counsel or referring the matter to a specialist adviser.

It pointed out that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 reduces the legal aid scope of five of the eight categories of coverage, and that the government has made clear that it intends to reduce the legal aid bill by £350m by 2014-2015.

Eight organisations are contracted to provide the service — Citizens Advice, Shelter, virtual law firm Scott-Moncrieff, the PLP, London firm Wilson & Co, the Child Poverty Action Group, the London Advice Services Alliance and Shelter Cymru.

Issue: 7518 / 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