header-logo header-logo

07 August 2024
Issue: 8083 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus , Public
printer mail-detail

Treasury could spend to save

A report by the Bar Council and Access to Justice Foundation into the value of free specialist legal advice has identified huge potential savings for the government

The report, ‘The value of justice for all’, published this week, suggests the government could save £4.5bn for every half a million people in receipt of specialist advice provided at an early stage of their legal problem.

Researchers used real-life case studies to model possible outcomes for individuals who receive free legal advice compared to those who do not. They calculated the costs to the Treasury in each case.

For example, a client living in social housing in Leeds was in rent arrears due to spending time in hospital, but agreed a debt repayment plan as a result of early legal advice, thereby paying off his creditors and avoiding potential eviction and a stay in temporary accommodation. After calculating estimated net adjusted value less cost of free legal advice, there was a saving for the Treasury of £20,244 in the short term and £21,494 in the long term.

Early intervention helped prevent legal issues spiralling, reduced pressure on the courts and tribunals and led to higher employability, improved health and reduced reliance on benefits, the report notes. It suggests: ‘Advising 100,000 clients could lead to 38,900 more people entering the workforce, generating approximately £81m in income tax and National Insurance contributions.’

Bar Council chair Sam Townend KC said: ‘Investing in free legal advice will help to resolve problems earlier and mean fewer cases need to reach court.

‘This will bear down on the record high court case backlog and will aid the wider justice system which is under huge strain and increasing pressure. The new government should adopt a fresh approach to legal aid and recognise this is an area where it can spend to save.’

Issue: 8083 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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