In this country we have a proud tradition of justice. In 1949 the then Labour government (at a time of great economic stringency, as it was just after the war) set up the legal aid system. No one, it was said, should be denied access to justice or legal help because they cannot afford it.
We are now once again in a time of great economic stringency. However the current conservative government is using this as an excuse to dismantle the system of legal aid which has served over the years to protect the poor and vulnerable.
The gravy train myth
The cuts to legal aid are often portrayed by the press as being a well deserved punishment to ‘fat cat’ lawyers riding a gravy train funded by public money. However the reality is that many lawyers working in this area barely have enough to fund their expenses.
When I first started work as a lawyer, almost every firm did legal aid. Since then the number has gone down dramatically, and now it is often hard for a client to find a legal aid solicitor at all. Would this be the case if legal aid were a gravy train?
The legal brain drain
The main reason the profession is leaving legal aid in droves is the oppressive administration and low fees. All right for those individual firms and solicitors – they are now earning more money doing something else. But who is left to act for those vulnerable clients who need them?
Most of the areas of practice covered by legal aid are complex and difficult. Family and child care work. Mental health. Immigration. Human rights. Housing. It takes time and experience to develop an expertise in these often difficult legal fields. If the solicitors are starved of funding and have to turn to other work, their knowledge and experience will be lost.
Local authority cuts and the NFP sector
Then there are the problems being experienced by the not for profit section. Most of these are funded largely by local authorities, and we all know what huge budget cuts they are going to have to cope with. Already there are reports of advice centres closing in Birmingham.
Not for profit may be less expensive because they are not out to make a profit and often use unpaid volunteers. However they are not free to run, and cannot exist without proper funding.
Their lawyers for example may be willing to work for a lower salary than they might get elsewhere but they still need to be paid. They have their mortgages to pay, and families to support the same as the rest of us.
Making matters worse
To add insult to injury, these cuts are unlikely to result in overall savings. The people with the problems will not go away simply because no-one will be able to give them legal representation.
The most likely outcome will be that problems which might have been resolved had they been given proper legal help, will simply get worse, which will impact negatively both on society and the national purse. People who are desperate often do desperate things.
Then there is the more sinister element which is that taking away legal funding will often take away peoples ability to challenge government decisions. Nice for government of course …
What can you do?
The Law Society is so concerned about these matters that it has set up a campaign, and a website called Sound off for Justice. If you are bothered by the prospect of millions of people being denied justice, I suggest you take a look at it. You will find links to news articles which give more detail on exactly what is happening and there is a petition you can sign.
There is also a facebook page and you can follow them on twitter.
If you want more detail there is also a lot of information on the Justice for All web-site.
Everyone I know in housing has a sinking feeling about the next few months Tessa, with housing benefit cuts and the legal aid thing.
People outside of the housing world I dont think are aware of how they are going to be affected. And I mean tenants AND Landlords both.
Housing and justice are 2 fundamental elements of our society, take them away and a lot more things will start to crumble. People are going to have to start learning how to do the legal work themselves because there wont be anyone out there for them otherwise
It’s not just “the poor and vulnerable” who are going to get it in the nuts. It’s everyone, sooner or later. I do really think that focusing on just “the poor and vulnerable” is a strategic error. That argument convinces the Guardianistas but they’re already convinced anyhow. We need to convince the cab drivers, the tabloid (black and red top) readers, the “hardworking families who play by the rules” if I may use a sickly Blairism. They’re the ones who don’t expect to have to get legal aid until something happens.
I hear tell that they’re cutting eligibility so that the first £100,000 equity in your home is no longer disregarded when assessing the client’s capital. This of course would kill mortgage possession cases for everyone who wasn’t in negative equity. Maybe we should use this to drum up support amongst folks in better off areas who are more likely to be homeowners, because anyone with a mortgage is just one job loss or other crisis away from being repossessed and they will have no representation, most likely, so the Bank will slaughter them.
Similarly, you don’t have to be poor and vulnerable to be illegally evicted, and that’s coming right out of scope. Whichever civil servant dreamt that up deserves to have his soul fed to Cthulhu.
If the worst comes to the worst, and the cuts all go ahead as planned, why don’t we all just abandon the state-run Legal Aid system and take it private? We could set up a foundation and invite lawyers and/or firms and/or interested passers by of any sort to subscribe to it out their revenues. Then, any subscriber can get funding from this foundation upon an application that isn’t 36 pages long in total for any case that Legal Aid currently covers today, plus a few more atop that, at less penurious rates and with less nonsense form filling. That, combined with Sibthorpe-style CFAs, might just be the ticket to keeping all us legal aid folks off the breadlines (if not in new Jags).
Okay, the kinks might need to be worked out of it but I think the idea’s sound. It also would give the mega-firms a chance to get Corporate Social Responsibility Points if they donate…
I wrote something a bit like that in a post in 2006: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2006/11/12/legal-aid-problem-sorted/
I agree JS about getting to people who think they arent affected. I didnt know about that £100K equity thing. I negotiate with banks on people’s behalf (See my post tomorrow) and have started a website sharing the information that I have gathered so people can save their own homes more effectively http://www.homesavingexpert.co.uk
Incidentally, I was in our local county court on Monday, the waiting are was standing room only……..all repossession cases, mortgage and social rented. I left there at 12.45 and I counted 40 people, still waiting for the morning list, and that was upstairs at Chambers, downstairs by the courts there was about the same amount. What is going to happen to those people if they bring in that £100k limit?
In addition to my business. I’m in a partnership that works with a homeless charity. We have a multilet house that takes people of the street. This not only gives them a home but also respect in themselves and lets them get back on their feet. The charity informed me that Citizens Advice is losing government funding. So not only can they not find legal aid they won’t be able to get any advice.