Last chance to target Lib Dems on legal aid cuts...
Cards on the table - unlike a fair number of lawyers, I don't see how you can make the case that legal aid can avoid cuts at a time of hugely strained public finances. On balance, there is also something to the Government's argument that legal aid in England and Wales is relatively costly by international standards, even if the case has been overstated and some of the reasons for that expense are in dispute.
September 21, 2011 at 08:12 AM
3 minute read
Cards on the table – unlike a fair number of lawyers, I don't see how you can make the case that legal aid can avoid cuts at a time of hugely strained public finances.
On balance, there is also something to the Government's argument that legal aid in England and Wales is relatively costly by international standards, even if the case has been overstated and some of the reasons for that expense are in dispute.
I also don't see how the Liberal Democrats can be condemned for not implementing their manifesto in Government. They are very much the junior partner in the coalition – they didn't get anywhere near winning.
But, accepting all that, it's high time – maybe the last available moment – to put some pressure on the Liberal Democrats to extract some meaningful compromises on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. It's a piece of legislation that been rushed through clearly in the expectation by the Government that it will face no potent opposition.
So far that calculation has proved largely correct. Whatever you feel about legal aid, it's a good rule of thumb that such a dynamic, lacking rigorous debate and Parliamentary scrutiny, often leads to messy legislation or the laws of unintended consequence, an outcome that looks likely here.
And there are elements in the bill which just look plain wrong-headed. If there's a credible case for clause 12, which paves the way to means-test legal aid for those held in police custody, a measure introduced after a string of miscarriages of justice, I haven't seen it.
Likewise, moves to withdraw legal aid from clinical negligence – a measure Lord Justice Jackson criticised this month – and some areas of welfare cases, are at best questionable and may end up hitting the tax-payer in other areas.
Even the supportive Parliamentary committee that examined the reforms earlier this year and the Ministry of Justice's own impact assessment both concluded that there was some risk that rushed legislation would lead to increased burdens on the taxpayer by other agencies, a key argument of critics of the bill.
So it seems that the last chance for the profession and the campaigners is to go hard after the Liberal Democrats, who are currently occupied with an angst-laden party conference focused on their own pangs at being aligned with the Conservatives.
That a few party figures have given the odd sympathetic quote on legal aid to the Guardian or Independent, strangely, isn't going to quite cut the mustard. The self-styled conscience of Government needs to be reminded that there are matters of importance occurring outside the conference hall. And now would be good.
Click here for an extended look at legal aid reform.
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
© 2025 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
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