header-logo header-logo

12 August 2010
Issue: 7430 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Time to stop legal aid tendering process?

Law Society wants compensation for family legal aid firms

The Law Society has demanded an immediate halt to the legal aid tendering process after it emerged that almost half of firms providing family law services have lost their contracts.

The Law Society has written to the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the government calling for the tendering process to be suspended while a public review is carried out to see whether areas around the country will have enough coverage.

Wales, the south-west, north-east and Leeds are believed to be particularly lacking in family legal aid provision.

The society is also calling for compensation for firms which have lost contracts, and is taking legal advice on whether it can bring a judicial review.
The LSC has confirmed that the number of family law providers has fallen by about 46%, from 2,400 to about 1,300.

Despite the figures, Carolyn Downs, LSC chief executive, has said a reduction of the supplier base was not an intended outcome of the tendering process.

Meanwhile, Law Society president, Linda Lee has accused the LSC of losing control of the tendering process. 

“The fall-out from these tenders will see almost 50% of firms previously doing legal aid work removed in a matter of a few weeks and this will impact on families and vulnerable people, preventing them access to vital legal services.

“The society is fully supportive of the need for quality standards in tendering. The implications of the LSC’s own surprise at the outcome is that skilled and talented lawyers who weeks ago delivered a quality service will now be prevented from helping those in need. When even the LSC itself is saying the outcome was not intended, and when clients are deprived of legal advice and services and firms are seeing important contracts vanish, the government has to take a closer look at this and make a decision.”

The society is surveying its members to find out which firms are affected.

Issue: 7430 / 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