Three major fault lines exposed in current system
Legal aid is caught in a “vicious circle” and requires a fundamental review and “realignment” of three basic faults if it is to be maintained at a reasonable standard.
A report published this week by the Legal Services Institute (LSI)—a think tank funded by the College of Law—identifies three main “fault lines” in the current system: “a fragmented and inefficient supplier base, a failure to match rights and funding, and broader systemic shortcomings”.
The report, Civil Legal Aid: Squaring the (Vicious) Circle, finds that there are greater overhead costs than necessary because of the large number of suppliers of legal aid work, both for the Legal Services Commission and the law firms themselves, therefore best value for money is not being achieved. In addition, the report stated that the increasing number of legal rights afforded to citizens, many of which are aimed at the most disadvantaged in society, are not matched by an increased availability of funds to allow people to pursue those rights.
The report favours the development of single source contracting through CLACs and CLANs (Community Legal Advice Centres and Networks) and the use of graduated fee schemes to cut down on administrative costs. It notes that law firms face extra costs by having to bid for matter starts.
It suggests that advice delivered need not always be “high quality”, and calls for greater “utility of service”—advice that is useful to resolve the client’s problem.
The report states that “too often [the legal aid fund is] being asked to pay for something which is not sufficiently useful, because, for instance, lawyers are sitting on the fence or are fanning the flames of a dispute rather than working quickly to resolve it”.
LSI director, professor Stephen Mayson says: “If efficiency savings in legal aid lead to any undermining of the rule of law, or compromise the administration of or access to justice, while we might have achieved a degree of fiscal prudence, society will undoubtedly be the poorer for it.”
