*/
GOVERNMENT Ministers have acknowledged that controversial plans to impose fixed fees for legal representation for vulnerable families and children cannot proceed without “further analysis”. Justice Minister Lord Bach has told Parliament that further analysis would be required before it could publish final fee schemes for family legal aid and that more work would be undertaken over the summer to allow for the introduction of the new scheme in April 2010. Recent research by economic consultants Oxera and a report from the House of Commons Justice Committee have provided a stinging critique of the Legal Services Commission’s (‘LSC’) approach to reforming family legal aid, in particular, highlighting the fact that the proposals have been made on “incomplete data, [and] a superficial understanding of the supply of legal services in this area”. The Justice Committee condemned the LSC not only for its “flawed, weak and inflexible” approach but also for its “conclusions first, evidence after” approach to policy-making.
Commenting today, Lucy Theis QC, Chairman of Family Law Bar Association, said:
‘What is so concerning about these proposals is the lack of reliable evidence to support them, in particular regarding their impact on effective access to justice to the most vulnerable families and children. It is a matter of great concern that an increasing number of independent reports make clear that the LSC’s family legal aid plans would hit the most vulnerable hardest, and that they lack any robust evidential base.
Today’s announcement concedes the need for complexity to be recognized in any revised fee structure. While making clear that the Government seems set on continuing to pursue its plans this is the first recognition that there is still some way to go before there is a properly graduated fee scheme that protects the interest of the vulnerable children and families, retains expertise within this important area and has the confidence and support of the practitioner groups.’
Commenting today, Lucy Theis QC, Chairman of Family Law Bar Association, said:
‘What is so concerning about these proposals is the lack of reliable evidence to support them, in particular regarding their impact on effective access to justice to the most vulnerable families and children. It is a matter of great concern that an increasing number of independent reports make clear that the LSC’s family legal aid plans would hit the most vulnerable hardest, and that they lack any robust evidential base.
Today’s announcement concedes the need for complexity to be recognized in any revised fee structure. While making clear that the Government seems set on continuing to pursue its plans this is the first recognition that there is still some way to go before there is a properly graduated fee scheme that protects the interest of the vulnerable children and families, retains expertise within this important area and has the confidence and support of the practitioner groups.’
GOVERNMENT Ministers have acknowledged that controversial plans to impose fixed fees for legal representation for vulnerable families and children cannot proceed without “further analysis”. Justice Minister Lord Bach has told Parliament that further analysis would be required before it could publish final fee schemes for family legal aid and that more work would be undertaken over the summer to allow for the introduction of the new scheme in April 2010. Recent research by economic consultants Oxera and a report from the House of Commons Justice Committee have provided a stinging critique of the Legal Services Commission’s (‘LSC’) approach to reforming family legal aid, in particular, highlighting the fact that the proposals have been made on “incomplete data, [and] a superficial understanding of the supply of legal services in this area”. The Justice Committee condemned the LSC not only for its “flawed, weak and inflexible” approach but also for its “conclusions first, evidence after” approach to policy-making.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
