Martin Comport of Dale & Dale solicitors writes in the Law Society Gazette, in the course of a complaint that the Law Society are using funds to campaign in support of legal aid, that
“Perhaps a test [for legal aid] should be: ‘If this was my money would I spend it on this litigation?’ Perhaps the legal aid budget would not have increased had a more stringent financial test been considered and hence such proposed cuts would not now be proposed.”
Good idea. Oh. Wait… Someone thought of it already.
“If the claim is not primarily a claim for damages (including any application by a defendant or a case which has overwhelming importance to the client), but does not have a significant wider public interest, Full Representation will be refused unless the likely benefits to be gained from the proceedings justify the likely costs, such that a reasonable private paying client would be prepared to litigate, having regard to the prospects of success and all other circumstances.” (5.7.4 Funding code criteria).
As Homer would say “Doh!” (not the greek one).