Legal aid at 60
On 30 July, 1949, the Legal Aid and Advice Act received Royal Assent, heralding the creation of the modern legal aid system. Last week, sixty years later, the Legal Action Group (LAG) held its conference to mark the anniversary of what is arguably one of the key components of the welfare state. Given the impact of the recession, both on government spending and on potential litigants looking to enforce their rights, this is an especially important time to reflect on the past, present and future of legal aid.
June 18, 2009 at 08:03 PM
4 minute read
On 30 July, 1949, the Legal Aid and Advice Act received Royal Assent, heralding the creation of the modern legal aid system. Last week, sixty years later, the Legal Action Group (LAG) held its conference to mark the anniversary of what is arguably one of the key components of the welfare state. Given the impact of the recession, both on government spending and on potential litigants looking to enforce their rights, this is an especially important time to reflect on the past, present and future of legal aid.
A brief history of Legal Aid
In the sixty years since the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee were implemented in the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, the role played by legal aid has expanded hugely – and 2009 will see more than two million people receive funding to help with their legal problems. But the roots of legal aid lie with the Poor Prisoners Defence Act 1903, which put the first statutory system in place for funding private litigation out of the public purse.
In 1930 the Government introduced the principle that criminal legal aid should be granted wherever it was 'in the interests of justice' to do so, a principle which still remains in place today. After the passing of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, the system moved from its original charitable basis, where lawyers provide their services for free, to a system based around securing justice and rights for all.
The legal aid system expanded throughout the second half of the century, being introduced to the county courts in 1956, the magistrates courts for domestic proceedings in 1961 and into the new Family Court in 1972. Legal aid ensured that thousands received representation across landmark cases, including the Marchioness inquest, the Thalidomide compensation cases and, more recently, the Gurkhas' high-profile immigration case.
Present day
Recent years have seen a raft of legislation affecting the provision of both civil and criminal legal aid. From the Access to Justice Act 1999 to the Legal Services Act 2007, the Government has taken a proactive approach to managing legal aid. But these changes have received a mixed reception, with Baroness Helena Kennedy QC referring to 'the present Government's lamentable record on legal aid'.
Much of the criticism surrounds the Government's stance on funding the legal aid system. Recent reforms have been accused of being merely cost-cutting measures. In June, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would be introducing means testing for Crown Court cases. This means that defendants with an disposable income or assets over a certain threshold would have to pay a contribution towards their legal aid costs during the trial. If the trial results in an acquittal, then the payments would be returned, with interest. But concerns have been raised that such an arrangement undermines the fundamental principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.
The funding issue was recognised at the LAG conference by Legal Aid Minister Lord Bach (pictured), who noted that while "we want to help as many people as we can… there is no new money for legal aid". This dose of harsh economic reality was echoed by Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Grieve QC MP, who observed that "turning to the Treasury and asking for more legal aid is something that no party can promise – we all need to live within our means". So for now, at least, it seems that some belt-tightening will be required for those undertaking publically funded work.
There is clearly a huge amount of support for legal aid among the profession as a whole – and this was evident from all the speakers at LAG's conference, which was jointly sponsored by The Law Society, Garden Court North and the Legal Services Commission. Despite the pressures on legal aid practitioners, Geoffrey Bindman spoke for many when he argued that "one of the fundamentals of justice is that there is a level playing field, and that the poor person has the same resources as those ranged against him". Maintaining this level playing field will be the biggest challenges faced by the Government over the coming years.
Thom Dyke will start pupillage at Hardwicke Building from October 2009
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250