header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 March 2007 / Karen Mackay
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Under pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Unrealistic deadlines threaten to undermine government plans for restructuring family legal aid, warns Karen Mackay

Last July, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) published a joint consultation paper, Legal Aid Reform: The Way Ahead, on new fee structures for legal aid work. This was published at the same time as Lord Carter’s report, Legal Aid: A Market-Based Approach to Reform, on the procurement of legal aid services.
Lord Carter’s review, which was initiated in July 2005, had focused on criminal legal aid work until the final months when various representative bodies, such as Resolution, were invited to meetings to discuss civil and family legal aid. However, discussions had been very broad and it was a complete surprise when the DCA/LSC consultation paper published detailed fee schemes.

Ministers touring the country were left in no doubt that family lawyers did not think that the fee levels proposed were workable. Nor was the timetable, which envisaged a three-month consultation period and implementation within six months of the close of consultation. Family legal aid practices, as well as civil practices, were facing

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll