To ask for your support to protect Legal Aid?

[Thistledew]

Access to justice regardless of your financial means has been considered to be the fourth pillar of the Welfare State, and as essential a right as education, medical treatment, and benefits. The proposed cuts to funding for legal aid will deprive some of the most vulnerable people in the UK of effective access to justice.

Those who will be hit the hardest will be

women

children and young people

disabled children

migrants and family members of migrants

victims of environmental pollution or people injured at work

victims of clinical negligence

Many critics of the proposals have pointed out that the proposed cuts are unlikely to produce an overall saving in money. Many people will be forced to try to conduct litigation in person, leading to court time being wasted. In cases relating to housing matters, for instance, where people will only be able to receive legal advice once they are imminently at risk of losing their home, small legal problems that could be dealt with quickly and simply by early legal advice, will build up to big problems that can only be resolved through court intervention.

In asylum cases, justice really will be up for sale to those who can afford it. Under the current proposals, a person will not be entitled to receive funding if they have succeeded in their case but the Home Office appeals to a Higher Court. There would be nothing to stop the Home Office presenting a weak case at the first appeal, and then bringing out their stronger arguments when the person seeking asylum is unrepresented before a senior court.

Next week will see the third reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders bill in parliament. Please support the Sound Off for Justice campaign by signing their petition and using this on-line form to lobby your MP.

Ok bb but I disagree and I've already set out why. I am not saying that all practitioners earn this amount, but a sizable minority. I can also give you examples of criminal cases involving multi-counsel inc several silks where the overall fees are going to exceed £1m. This is why there is talk of aboloishing silks or at least stopping the practice of paying them double the rates oif juniors. It's unsustainable. Yes they do an imoprtant job but so do the cps, salaried sols and police who are not earning anywhere near the same amount for working on the same job. I also stand by my earlier point about the syatem proppiing up an outdated and expensive independent bar where people hae to eearn a lot in order tpo pay huge rents and percentages to clerks. Something has to give. I understand that people don't agree with me simply because by saying what I am saying I appear to not support access to justice. I aam saying the problem is more complex than this. A lot more complex. I totally understand and accept people disagreeing with me but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about. We have to evlove. If we stick our heads in the sand we can't then dictate the most favourable terms.
Writing this on a bb btw hence loafds of mistakes!

Of course there are certain criminal cases, usually very complex cases with multiple defendants, where the fees will be extremely high. They are few and far between, and they are not the cause of the problem.

I don't understand the point I quoted you on, that's why I asked you to explain. It sounds as though you think that the true rates are not enough to pay a decent lawyer, thereby contradicting your point that they are paid too much. I do apologise if I sounded 'fucking pompous'. [hmmm]

Of course there are criminal cases that cost millions particularly complex fraud trials.

But this debate is not about that, it is about how many people will no longer be able to access the legal system in civil and family disputes.

The issue of the legal aid budget is global. The govt can't completely cut the budget for crime so they look at alternatives. The point about high value criminal cases is that (a) they are sometimes not complex and (b) there is a huge duplication of fees meaning that in multi-handed cases several counsel can end up doing v little for a £25,000 brief. When you factor in the fact that QCs are paid double, thayt adds up to a lot. That's why the system needs streamlining. As to the earlier points about simple cases deserving represenation, sorry I do not agree. They can be dealt with a lot more cost effectivel y than by two family barristers and a hhefty chunk of court time imo. You wouldn't dewmand to see a consultant neurologist for a headache. I say this as people are so often fond of drawing comparisons with the NHS situation (another area that couold be streamlined but that's a different matter altogether).

I am guilty of arguing my position in a piecemeal manner but I am resolute that I know what I know what I know. I understand this rankles but please have the common decency to listen to another point of view

The WI are against the Legal Aid cuts!
Guardian Article

I don't see why the Government should pay for peoples divorce lawyers to be honest. Although I have no knowledge of this but I would imagine its very easy to spend other peoples money and so the cases probably take longer than they should and at greater cost.

Indeed the WI is very concerned about cuts to legal aid, especially because the proposals will leave victims of domestic violence without any legal redress. Yesterday there was a debate in parliament where the justice minister said 'oh, it's OK to cut legal aid for DV to discourage women who make up allegations'. here I caught some of the debate on Yesterday in Parliament last night, and Djanogly was stating that a GP's evidence wasn't enough to qualify for legal aid, because the GP wouldn't have been present when the woman (or man) was attacked. As if victims beat themselves up and then trick their GPs!

Let's not forget this is the government whose first priority, on taking office, was not the economic crisis, but giving anonymity to accused rapists...

aerol - because it will cost the taxpayer MORE if the wealthier party in a divorce manages to waltz off without supporting their children and ex-spouse properly. The lower earner - usually the woman, usually the primary carer of the children - will very often be left to rely on benefits. Because domestic violence costs us all in terms of healthcare, crime, and the life-long effects on the victim and her (or his) children. Also because society has an interest in ensuring justice is done on any legal issue, whether it's divorce or commercial law. Fair reasonable settlements within a reasonable time are usually cheaper for the public purse as well as better for everyone involved.

I think this thread has exemplified why legal aid is so important to secure access to justice.

Without meaning to be nasty or take a dig at blinkineck, the point you have been trying to make has come across as contradictory and confused.

I am sure that you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, so surely it should be an easy thing to explain your position on the provision of legal aid? But for some reason, maybe because it is not easy to take a step back from one's own views in order to view them and present them with clarity, or maybe you are just not practicing presenting arguments in a logical manner, you don't seem to have put across the thoughts that are in your head in a way that has made it easy for people reading this thread to understand you.

Now imagine if the outcome that was dependant on you getting your point across was not winning a MN debate, but getting a fair settlement in your divorce, or getting a court order that your landlord mend the dangerous wiring in your house, or getting compensation from a doctor whose negligence has caused your child to be permanently disabled, or winning the right to live in the same country as your children.

Throw into the mix the anxiety you might feel about the outcome of any of these examples, add a dash of dealing with an ex-husband who has been gas lighting you for years or not having English as your first language, and magnify it by having a judge or barrister employed by your opponent (rather than a fellow MNer) telling you that you are confused and contradictory, and it becomes a truly daunting prospect.

It is probably a simple matter for any decent lawyer to sit you down, ask you half a dozen questions, and in about 20 minutes prepare a clear explanation of what you perceive to be wrong with legal aid. Day in, day out, they prepare statements and years of training and experience make it easy for them to present arguments in a way that will come across clearly in court. It may well be "money for old rope" to them to prepare such a simple case, but the benefit to you of having someone to clearly present your thoughts, or to point out to you the way the court will look at what you are saying becomes of huge importance to you. It is also important to the judge and judicial system that they are given the best opportunity to really understand your point of view, and decide the case on that basis, not on the basis of who has best been able to present their case.

The stark truth of the government's plans is that many people are going to be deprived of the chance to have someone help them put their case clearly. They will be deprived of having their case presented in a 'voice' that the legal system will understand.

Our society will become much more unfair if those people already in a position of weakness are silenced even further.

aerol- I agree it seems outrageous to me for people to have their divorces funded by general taxation. If you are getting divorced then you should pay for it not the Government. I also agree that it is highly likely that law firms milk legal aid for all its worth and that they don't resolve them as quickly as they would if it were a private client as what competitive pressure is on them as the client probably couldn't care less how much the bill is as they aren't paying.

Thistledew Well said.

wikoloite Most legal aid is paid on a fixed fee basis now so there is no incentive to spin out a case. Not that the vast majority would do it anyway.

On many occasions, Legal Aid is a loan which has to be repaid when money becomes available after a house is sold.

Article today from Left Foot Forwards:

The missing millions in the legal aid cuts

Today is the third day of the report stage and third reading of the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, and although some changes have been made, it remains largely the same bill that we have criticised in the past.
It still withdraws legal aid from clinical negligence claims; it still makes victims pay for the privilege of taking wrongdoers to court; it still introduces means-testing for arrestees in the police station; and it still has the fingerprints of a minister who made £97,000 in a year from the industry he?s supposed to regulate.

Like the Dowlers before him, Chris Jefferies, who was falsely accused of Joanna Yeats?s murder, spoke out against the changes today, saying:

?I think there is absolutely no question that I wouldn?t have been able to take the action that I did because at the moment, one is able to take out a conditional fee agreement and that means that the lawyer?s success fees, which are a percentage of the total legal costs of taking the action, will be paid by the other side and one won?t be responsible for those.?

The justification for these cuts has always been the aim of ?delivering substantial savings during the current spending review period?, to quote the government?s response to the select committee?s report, which is why it?s so bizarre the the bill as it stands may not even do that.

The Law Society has released a new report, Missing Millions (pdf), detailing the problems with the costing of the legal aid bill, and it raises questions about the competency of the Ministry of Justice, and the carrying out of the spending review itself.

Some of the problems are ?merely? bizarre unsupported conclusions.
For instance, the Law Society points out:

The MoJ predicts that the cuts in legal aid for family separation will lead to 210,000 fewer legal help cases and 45,000 fewer cases with legal representation. But it says this will lead to an increase of only 4,000-10,000 in the number of mediations, at an extra cost of £6 million to £10 million.
Based on current take up of mediation, the Law Society predicts that there will actually be an increase of closer to 90,000 mediations, at a cost of £40 million - more than 15 per cent of the entire savings wiped out.

Other concerns are more fundamental, and relate to the priorities of the spending review.

The Law Society points out that the MoJ has ignored the costs that the cuts will impose on other government departments:

Legal advice will not be available for the 595,000 legal help cases that currently qualify, and problems with housing, benefits, education and immigration will not be sorted out; using data from the Civil and Social Justice Survey and the Legal Services Commission, Citizens Advice estimates:

? For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on housing advice, the state potentially saves £2.34;
? For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on debt advice, the state potentially saves £2.98;
? For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on benefits advice, the state potentially saves £8.80;
? For every £1 of legal aid expenditure on employment advice, the state potentially saves £7.13.

In allowing departments to make cuts in their spending without examining the knock-on effect on other departments, the spending review prioritises, not saving the government money, but a wholesale shift in spending from discretionary to mandatory.

One explanation for why the review has been conducted so badly is that the MoJ didn?t actually wait for the information required to do it well. The public accounts committee recommended in January that the ministry conduct the spending review ?on the basis of a full understanding of the cost and value of its services? ? which seems like it shouldn?t need saying, but it clearly did.
The justice select committee repeated that call in March, saying:

We are disappointed in the dearth of evidence on legal aid expenditure at case level to enable the identification of key influences on cost.

Despite these calls, the MoJ decided to press on, saying it ?would have liked more information?, but concluding:

There is a pressing need for reform to meet our objectives for legal aid, including delivering substantial savings during the current spending review period and we must therefore proceed on the basis of the information that we have.

In racing to meet an artificial target, they forgot the old maxim ?measure twice, cut once? ? indeed, in their eagerness to cut, it looks doubtful whether they bothered to measure at all.

I think it's essential for cases like the Dowlers and Chris Jeffries but still think it's appalling that it can be used in any part of a divorce.

Some friends of ours split a while back after she had an affair and moved out. There were huge debts that had been run up during the marriage and no assets except his pension. She never paid a penny towards repaying any debts as she claimed she could not afford to as the lower earner yet could claim legal aid to pursue a financial settlement. He was the higher earner yet the debt repayments exceeded his salary and he sank further into debt throughout yet was entitled to nothing. How can that be right?

I think it should be restricted and the funds concentrated where they are most needed.