Recent Developments on Legal Aid

Editors Comments

The scope of legal aid in the UK has undergone a tremendous change in the past 3 years since the implementation of the Access to Justice Act 1999. From an examination point of view, the student will have to be familiar with the reason for the introduction of legal aid to the UK, the original system of legal aid and what was wrong with it which prompted the govt. to change, the new legal aid system and conditional fee arrangements.

A typical legal aid question will require students to analyse the new system of legal aid and decide whether or not it meets the needs of the public i.e. does it ensure access to justice? There have been some criticisms from academics and legal practitioners that the system of legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999 actually makes things worse than the previous system both for the lawyers and the litigants.

Introduction

The legal aid system was introduced under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 after World War II. The aim of having a legal aid system was to allow people to have access to legal advice, representation and the courts regardless of their economic status. As the first Legal Aid Bill passed through Parliament in 1949, the government explained the purpose:” To provide legal advice for those of slender means and resource, so that no one will be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or defend a legal right and to allow solicitors and counsel to be remunerated.”  Legal aid in the UK covers a wide scope of assistance and in order to qualify a person had to meet certain relevant income level requirement and show the merits of their case.

The Carter Review (Headed by Lord Carter)

·        Concerned with the design of an efficient procurement system that also contained  quality guarantees

·        Based on the notion of an “open and  responsive” market which serves to spread the risk of funding legal work between “supplier and purchaser”

·        Argued that costs increased because of  “…systemic weaknesses in the way legal aid services are procured and therefore inefficiencies in the way those services are delivered”

·        Carter review interested in introducing new fee structures unified contracts and competitive tendering for legal aid work.

·        Recommended: fees should be paid on a “fixed or graduated” scale.

Reponse from the Legal Action Group (LAG)

·        Carter Review called to clarify some of the review’s findings and the reliance on the market to “restructure” legal aid was a “high risk strategy”

·        Proposal for fewer suppliers of criminal legal aid and larger geographical contracts, would lead to less choice for consumer.

 (Note: Zander in the Hamlyn Lecture Series: reduces accessibility and increase monopoly in 2000). The Carter Review has insufficient research as to the impact of further reforms on legal aid firm. Would it force some to close or merge?

·        Further research would be required on the impact of reforms as it might drive out of the market those very firms that were best surfed to provide value for money in provision of legal services.

·        Proposals for competitive tendering and a new fee structure would lead to “advice deserts” particularly rural areas.

·        Coincide that to lower the cost and increase productivity at the same time will inevitable impact on both the quality of service provided and access issues for those in most need. The notion that fewer, larger, providers will deliver an efficient, sustainable and quality service is a risky pre-action.

·        Accused the Carter Review of proposing a solution that will not exist in reality: fewer, larger firms will not necessarily deliver a more efficient service.

·        The key to success was linking together and including different groups in the advice sector, as well as government departments. However, it was not clear from government proposals how this coordination would be achieved.