Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Carter Criticism

Sep 29, 2018, 16:33 PM
Slug : carter-criticism
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 2, 2007, 04:02 AM
Article ID : 85395

The House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Select Committee published its report Implementation of the Carter Review of Legal Aid on 1 May. It states:

'We are extremely concerned that the Department is trying to engage in such a far reaching change to the structure of Legal Aid on the basis of little or no evidence about which cost drivers have caused the problem or how its plans for a solution are likely to affect both suppliers and clients. We fear that if the reforms go ahead there is a serious risk to access to justice among the most vulnerable in society. The reform package is being implemented at too fast a speed. There has been no time for proper business planning by practitioners or even for them to understand the raft of proposals, counterproposals and consultations which have been emanating from the Legal Services Commission. Although it clear that there is an urgent problem with legal aid expenditure, it is no solution to try to introduce changes in an atmosphere of panic.'

While most of the memoranda and the oral evidence predated the current modified DCA/LSC fee scheme proposals, the committee was convinced that the criticisms voiced in those submissions, by and large, remained valid (see evidence from the President of the Family Division and Professor Judith Masson in March [2007] Fam Law 204). It was also deeply concerned that the effective reduction in case fees for a significant number of specialist family legal aid suppliers would make it increasingly unattractive to practice in family law: It is unlikely that these fee schemes would halt the trend of family lawyers leaving the legal aid system, let alone reverse it. For more information see June [2007] Fam Law. The full report is available on www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmconst.htm.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from