Legal Aid Issues (The implications of the proposals for change)

All the above cases have been supported by Legal Aid at little to no expense to the state.

The legal aid system was a brilliant system in its purest form as it enabled the ordinary citizen to have the resources of the government to back him against the might of hugh corporations mainly insurance companies and for this reason the corporations generally saw the sense in paying up rather than fighting a case that had merit so that the net cost to the government was very little.

There are other elements of the legal aid system where the opponents are ordinary citizens or the government itself so that there is very little chance of the government getting its money back but it is essential to provide the citizen with some sort of even handed playing field, so that with some reluctance in a democracy the government provides assistance, that is principally in the areas of family law and in the area of criminal law. In such cases there is an underlying expense that used to be subsidised by the domestic conveyancing system costs although never to the extent of such costs being exorbitant

However, because the government apparently wants to reduce the legal aid bill, partly increased somewhat (the figures being largely exaggerated by the inclusion of vat and substantially increased court fees) because of the uncontrolled application of market forces to the conveyancing system, for some illogical reason the government apparently wants to remove the underwriting nature of the purest element of legal aid and replace it? with a catchy phrase "no win no fee" system but what is actually happening is that the government is removing the underwriting and expecting lawyers to "gamble", paying wages and huge overheads, against corporations that have unimaginable resources, so that in a situation where the individual is not prepared to "gamble" understandably all their wordly goods the lawyers are expected to run up hugh overdrafts (if their bankers will let them) and this is supposed to replace the present system to provide the citizen with justice.

This will clearly not work, apart from the fact the lawyers will end up in conflict with their own clients because they will have more at stake in the case than their clients, only a limited number of lawyers will have the resources to fight any cases at all and even they will only fight absolutely certain cases (what ever they are because the more money that is at stake the more likely the insurance company will argue that "the world is flat!!") the net result will simply be that the citizen will lose any realistic chance of having any remedy and the industry of the legal profession will be destroyed at High Street level which will not simply affect the "Rascally Attorneys" but also all the support staff , "independent experts" (medical and assorted others), their support staff and of course the victim! who doesn't receive justice.

Does anybody out there realise how serious the situation is and if they have any idea or have any other comments

Please email us at lawyers@fletcherslaw.com

Click here to see a discussion

And Our Response to Lord Chancellor's Consultation