BUCKS, BERKS & OXON LAW SOCIETY

Response to Consultation

“The Future of Publicly Funded Legal Services”


1 (a) The four core principles detailed at paragraph 11 are fundamental to the provision of good quality legal services to publicly funded clients who are entitled to the same level of service as private clients. In terms of choice of solicitor, this should continue to be restricted to specialist firms eg clinical negligence claimants to be represented only by franchised firms. This restriction of choice, based on expertise, ensures that only viable cases are investigated and pursued/defended and hence restricts the claims on the Fund. It is also crucial that legal advice is provided by an independent body and it is contended that a fifth core principle should be “independence”.

(b) Rationalising of legal services has already occurred, due to the high levels of administration required and poor remuneration for publicly funded work. There has been a large haemorrhage of firms who simply cannot make publicly funded work pay. However, there still remains a hard core of firms who are committed to “legal aid” work and who have organised themselves in such a way, which, with slightly greater financial commitment, could make “legal aid” work pay. The Law Society needs to support these firms. The Legal Services Commission also needs to reorganise itself and undergo rationalisation. Experience has found that the Northern Area Offices appear to be more efficient that the Southern areas which probably has something to do with recruitment and salaries in the South. Everything is done by post, document exchange or electronic mail so there appears to be no reason why the Legal Services Commission themselves should not be centralised rather than regionalised. There must be economies to be made here.

Many firms are investigating cases on a pro bono basis in order to secure investigative help or full representation, hence saving the public purse! The current system would work if the cash limited budget was a reasonable one.

2 The general opinion is that the Public Defender Service will not provide any service not already provided by criminal legal aid firms. The findings of research into the PDS pilots, must deal with quality as well as cost. Private practice can offer independent specialist skills and heavyweight experience which is critical in complex cases. Private firms can compete financially with the PDS and are likely to provide a cheaper and more efficient service.

3 No. It is very expensive for Solicitors to qualify and train and debt-burdened students are likely to think twice about being employed at not-for profit organisations. There will be no real progression for solicitors at these centres and recruitment may prove a problem. If solicitors do not see employment at these centres as a long term career move then there may be a high turnover of staff. These factors will impact on the ability of these centres to provide a service which reflects the “core principles”.

4. Yes, technology networks sound useful but would need to be accessible to all practitioners and not be prohibitively expensive. In this way the Law Society could support the firms committed to “legal aid” work.

5. Definitely not. As stated previously, there has already been a huge haemorrhage of firms due to the burdensome bureaucracy, and poor remuneration for “legal aid” work. However, viability for private firms can be achieved with a high volume – high specialisation approach. Most private firms doing this type of work have a small percentage of their turnover committed to publicly funded work. In a commercial world, this work has to contribute to the profits of the firm for the firm to remain viable.

6 No. There would be a serious implication for the standard of service provided if civil advice and assistance was transferred from private practice to the not-for-profit sector which may be dependent on grants etc. There may be a case for expanding the not-for-profit sector, to compete on a level playing field, in disciplines and geographical areas not adequately covered by the private sector.

7 Yes. Specialisation generally results in cost savings because non-viable cases are filtered out early and outcomes tend to be more successful, thereby reducing the claims on the Legal Aid Fund.
Access to justice necessitates more provision than by “just enough firms”. The public should still be entitled to freedom of choice of solicitor, as far as possible.

8 Yes, provided that funding is made available for representation at these hearings/tribunals and the cost of increasing the schemes/tribunal is not included in the legal aid budget.

9 Yes – education of legal rights should be pursued and funded. This will help to filter claims to a large extent. “Do it Yourself” schemes are already provided on many firm’s websites and this should be supported to encourage the resolution of easier problems.

10 Yes – but this will only deal with one area of law, that is, claims where compensation will be paid.

11 This option can only be considered once it has been explored with the insurance industry. The recent experience with The Accident Group is that the insurers got “cold feet” because of the number of claims being made on the policies. A good idea in principle but likely to be unworkable in practice – how will it be policed and what happens where there is no legal expense insurance?

12 No. This is a negative attitude and it has already proved difficult recruiting legal aid practitioners.

13 No.

14. The preferred option is to continue with the present structure with publicly funded work being delivered predominantly through private practice. The present system works and there still remains a heavy commitment to do the work, as evidenced in the feedback at the Law Society Roadshows. This Society is disappointed that in terms of civil and family work, only one of the models promotes undertaking the work in private practice.