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

In scope but out of reach? Examining differences between publicly funded telephone and face-to-face family law advice [2013] CFLQ 253

Sep 29, 2018, 19:03 PM
Slug : in-scope-but-out-of-reach-examining-differences-between-publicly-funded-telephone-and-face-to-face-family-law-advice-2013-cflq-253
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 28, 2013, 10:30 AM
Article ID : 104899

Keywords: Legal aid - mode of access - family problems - telephone advice - civil justice

Over the last two decades, the public sector has embraced new modes of service delivery, moving away from traditional face-to-face provision towards internet and telephone-based advice and information. While telephone provision now plays an increasingly significant role in overall provision of legal advice, there has been little empirical research comparing telephone to face-to-face services. Using administrative data from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) on legal aid services for family law problems, and focussing on those problem types that remain in scope after the implementation in April 2013 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), this paper explores the similarities and differences between the two channels. We examine which client groups and matter types tend towards particular channels of advice, the relationship between mode of advice and the outcome of cases for clients, and the relationship between mode of advice and advice time. We find that there are some differences in mode of advice used among clients with particular demographic characteristics. Our findings indicate that whilst cases concluded over the telephone take less time than those conducted face-to-face, this disparity becomes less pronounced once we control for demographics, matter type and (particularly) stage reached. Importantly, the results demonstrate a clear difference between the outcomes achieved based on mode of advice. Despite some methodological limitations, the results suggest a clear difference in the type of service delivered by the two modes which has important implications for the future development of telephone based services in legal services.

The full version of this article appears in issue 3 of 2013 of Child and Family Law Quarterly.

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