I have been wondering about the assertion that we spend far more on legal aid than other countries, an assertion which underpins the Green Paper. I had toyed with the idea of making a stab at unpicking that assertion – but the UK Human Rights Blog has done it for me, and a fine job they have made of it too. What is important to note is that even if one accepts the proposition that we spend more on legal aid (which is far from clear), the study relied upon by the MoJ itself notes that we spend significantly less on justice overall than some of the countries under comparison. And this matters because if there is less legal aid there will be more pressure on the courts system to pick up the slack. Can HMCS cope? Probably not.
Search Results for: legal aid green paper
The turf is always greener
Further to my post noting the outbreak of ‘turf wars’ between barristers and solicitors…on further investigation the ‘turf wars’ appears to amount to a rather snippy press release from The Law Society in respect of its response to the MoJ consultation on the FGFS, in respect of which the FLBA have so far maintained a dignified silence. It would be all too easy to be distracted from the real issue (swingeing cuts in ALL our fees if the MoJ / LSC has its way) and waste valuable energy arguing amongst ourselves and achieving nothing except to further dim the view that jo public has of us ‘sharks’. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand what purpose the Law Society think their press release will serve (I don’t suppose that money cut from barristers pay is going to be returned to solicitor’s pockets as a result) but I guess that’s their prerogative. However, I know that many of the visitors to this blog struggle to understand the differences between barristers and solicitors, so it might be helpful if I explain a little bit about the differences in so far as is relevant to the work we do under Family Legal Aid.
Unacceptable Delay
As we move into June I am reminded of a letter I wrote to Jonathan Djanogly on 8 June last year, which has so far gone unacknowledged. It read:
Dear Mr Djanogly,
Family Courts without a Lawyer – A Handbook for Litigants in Person
I am pleased to enclose with this letter a copy of my recently published book, the subject matter of which I hope you will find of interest.
I am a family barrister, working daily with families experiencing relationship breakdown and working through its consequences. As such, I am aware of the practical, legal and emotional complexities that such cases can often involve.
You will see from my book that I am supportive of attempts to divert separated couples from the court arena, but I know from experience that mediation and other forms of ADR will not work in a core of cases. Those that cannot be successfully resolved by mediation or agreement will, by their very nature, be more likely to be precisely the kind of disputes that would be most efficiently and most fairly dealt with through the support and guidance of competent legal specialists.
A high proportion of my clients have within their own personal history or within their immediate family a background of alcohol or substance abuse, domestic abuse or dysfunctional family relationships, learning disabilities or mental health problems or neglectful or abusive childhood experiences that have affected their adult functioning. I am very concerned about the prospect of many individuals like those I represent having to deal with their family difficulties in future without the benefit of skilled legal advice and representation.
I have been so concerned about the potential injustices that may be caused to parents and to their children in the absence of competent legal advice and representation for family cases that I have written this book. A miscarriage of justice for a parent may have a lifelong impact on the children, indeed it may have intergenerational consequences (with all the associated cost to the public purse).
Whilst I hope that my book will ameliorate some of the difficulties faced by Litigants in Person, and that it will help to reduce the disadvantages faced by them, I do not think that it is an adequate substitute for legal advice and representation, nor do I think that in itself tools such as my book can be a proxy for the Government fulfilling its duty to provide access to justice. Many of my clients have very low levels of educational attainment, struggle with literacy or language and may struggle to cope because of poor mental health or stress. My book would not help them. It will help a limited number of reasonably educated, emotionally stable individuals to lessen (but not remove) the obstacles they face in the event that they find themselves with no alternative but to ask the court for help.
I hope that you and colleagues at the Ministry of Justice will reflect upon the contents of my book and the quantity of information contained in it: it merely skims the surface of family law and the operation of the family courts. Bearing in mind the sheer scale of the task faced by Litigants in Person in trying to grapple with these issues whilst in the midst of the most traumatic time of their lives, do you really believe that access to justice can be preserved in the event that the Government implements the proposals contained in the Legal Aid Green Paper?
I should be happy to hear any feedback on the publication or in respect of my comments.
Yours etc.
Now I know that Mr Djanogly thinks that 52 weeks is an unacceptably long delay, because he is always telling us so. I am therefore confident that by close of business on Friday his response will be with me (along with his bulk order).
ROFL, as they say.