What has Legal Aid Ever Done To U Lord Jackson?

By now it is clear what the government intend to do with the cuts to legal aid. Does the sum 350 million ring a bell? Yes, the government aim to cut legal aid by 350 million pounds every year. This is due to our very own Lord Justice Jackson's idea to reform the area of access to justice.
As a consequence of his reforms successful claimants will have to pay solictors out of their winnings. This is ridiculous!!!! This will hardly leave them with any money anyway which will mean people will only go to court if they know they will win rather than simply because they want justice and this is unfair. Numerous important landmark cases were seen due to the fact that they were to provide justice for others not just for monetary reasons. These cuts are going to change the law as we know as they only intend to increase claims in employer liabilty ans personal injury because there is money involved.
Additionally, it will also result in lawyers losing money as their fees will be capped by 25% in P.I cases. They also intend to make mediation settlements enforceable by courts. However, surely, does this not eradicate the whole point of mediation? The whole of mediation is so the parties can settle outside of court, so why would it be enfoceable by them?
The reforms have lead to many MPs calling for their peers to rethink the legal aid cuts with the assumption that there must be other ways to make the deficit back. Suggestions include that the government should look into whether pension and workers should be subject to "poluter pays" for the poor decision making which leads to winning appeals.
Another proposal was that family law should be looked into more closely. The fact that there will be funding for domestic violence cases could lead to an increase of domestic violence cases and false accusations. The Law Gazette also stated that the domestic violence should be edited to include "non physical violence" as well.
So will the cuts end free legal as we know it? The House of Commons Justice Committee do not think it will be, instead they believe it will lead to a "significant under supply" of legal aid providers.
Acceptable?...Why should we pay taxes that the govenrnment increase whenever they feel like whilst still being subjected to pay for a legal voice to defend ourselves anyway? Come October, this will be cry of many citizens in the country but by that time it will too late. It's a shame people are not focusing on this issue now rather than the cuts to jobs. I understand that jobs are important, but cuts to legal aid could lead to an advice drought which will leave only the wealthy to be able to defend themselves and get away with committing injustices to people. I don't know about anyone else but this is not a world I am prepared for.

The Solicitor Corner! - Legal aid cuts affect firms too

Cuts in any department is not a good thing. Cuts in legal aid can have dire consequences especially for the public as an estimated 500,000 people will be unable to gain access to free legal aid. Debt advice, housing, divorce, benefits and employment are some areas that will no longer be free legal aid. This could lead to MP's having to take on a greater workload and employ more people to deal with issues such as immigration cases which would normally be dealt with by a law centre. Additonally, law firms could be highly affected as they would have to reduce their rates in order to help the less wealthy deal with issues that would have normally been free.

I cannot see the positve outcome in the cuts to the legal sector. Again, it will only make the gap between rich and poor more prominnent and lead to injustice as the less affluent will have great difficulty trying to defend themselves in legal cases.

Criminal Law - Changing the PACE

March sees more changes happening to criminal law specifically the police powers outlined under ss44-47 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In the Strasbourg court, the case of Gillan and Quintin v UK has established that the stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act under ss44-47 contradict Convention law. Therefore, there have been slight changes to code A, B and D in PACE.

Additionally, it will be at the discretion of the police and local communities as whether stop and search records shall be continued to be used in certain areas. I am weary of the discretion as if stop and search is recorded, this could lead to the ultra vires of the police and there will be no evidence or proof of any injustice.

The Solicitor Corner!..Law Firms May Be A Dying Breed!

The introduction of the Alternative Business Structure may be very daunting for someone studying law. Introduced by the Legal Services Act, it's purpose is to allow other business or companies to create their own legal sectors for example "Tesco Law". This is because 80% of the work carried out in law firms no longer require authority to do so and therefore falls outside the six catergories of reserved legal work.


I can see the reasons as to why this is a good thing. It is good for the public as they will have more access to legal aid and help, however, it can be restrictive on many law firms as the law does not allow law firms to expand into having their own business sectors or stores etc. How is this a level playing field?

Kerry Underwood stated that ABS is about "the wholesale abolition of the legal proffession". This is because ABS companies will have to deliver reserved activities just like law firms. However, what will become of reserved and unreserved legal activties in the future i think will definately affect how law firms will be affected by ABS

My apologies for my absence

Sorry my fellow Lawholics for my temporary absence from blogging. It seems second year is alot demanding than i expected but fear i have become reaquainted with my legal journals and news and shall not stop blogging for a long time. :-) (crowd cheers)

Property Law - Estate agents need further governing?

The Solicitors Journal february 1 vol 155 no 4

The Bizness World - The RBS Report - Is there any point?

RBS! I actually had work experience for RBS in Liverpool Street when I was 15 yrs old which is fantastic (in a sarcastic tone)seen as now everyone blames them for the recession that has lead to higher prices and less jobs.

Therefore, it is with great consternation that I can say that The Financial Services Authority have planned to release the RBS report this month. The report exposes the investigation into the bank that took place in May 2009, almost two years ago. The reason for the delay of publication was due to the fact that the FSA were bound by confidentialiy under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, this argument could be easily countered by the fact that the public should be entitled to know what part the senior executives of the bank had to play in the current economic breakdown. Additionally, this is also supported by the fact that there have been intense and detailed reports about banks that are not state owned for example Northern Rock and The Lehman Brothers "Valukas" report which was massive 40 million pages long. With this in mind and the fact that RBS is 83% government owned, a report exposing the downfalls in the governance of RBS should not be something that should have taken two years to deliberate on.

William Davies in The Business Law Journal [January 2011] volume 32 states that the report would provide "significant benefits". He says that the investigation into whether there were any fudiciary breaches made by the directors would pave the way to judicial reconstruction of the litigation surrounding the governance of banks. By exposing how powerless the laws relating to banks are, could encourage policy makers to make sufficient changes to prevent any future replications of failures in the banking systems.
Additionally, Davies goes on to say that the report will also restore hope in the public that the banks are not uncontrollable and do have strict regimes to follow. The public will gain more faith in the government.
I agree with Davies on the points that it may change the law to be a positive thing. Clearly, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 act is too strong a safeguard for the banks and is a law that works against the law itself as it prevents the legal bodies of anaylsis from investigating breach because they could be in breach themselves. This does not make sense.
Moreover, cases such as R v Rollins [2010] establish that the powers of the FSA are growing and are not just limited to offences underlined in ss 402 and 403 of the Finacial Services and Marketing Act 2000 and can now prosecute on money laundering contrary to The Crime Act 2002 ss 327 and 328. These changes highlight that policy makers are not afraid to contradict laws in other areas so why should they be fearful in the banking sector?
However, where I somewhat disagree is that the report will provide a new public confidence. This is because the public are not going to sit and analyse a report that is a million pages long, they will only listen to news summaries and still may not fully believe the investigation.

In conclusion, the reports shall be out very shortly so i guess we will just have to see how detailed the FSA have been allowed to go due to the confidentiality laws protecting the RBS. I do not think that the reports will tell us anything new other than what we have already assumed and may still be limited in comparison to the US "Valukas" Report but should still be published due to principle.