Lawyers have called for a pause in the government's legal aid reforms, saying they will leave the most vulnerable without access to justice.
Echoing pleas from the medical profession that have temporarily halted NHS reform, the Law Society has launched a strident attack on the Ministry of Justice's plans to remove half a million cases a year from entitlement to funding for divorce, child maintenance, clinical negligence and welfare cases.
The largest professional body of UK lawyers claimed the coalition government is disregarding official consultation exercises.
In a letter to the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, seen by the Guardian, the president of the Law Society, Linda Lee, declared: "The government's proposals amount to a fundamental reshaping of the legal aid scheme, with many areas of law where services are provided to the most vulnerable, being completely removed from scope.
"We fear that the haste in which the proposals were drafted has meant that many issues with far-reaching impacts on members of the public and the justice system have not been considered."
Cuts in legal aid will merely shift responsibility between departments and impose far higher costs on other arms of government, Lee cautions. Allowing funding for family cases only where domestic violence is involved will act as "a perverse incentive" for false claims, she added. "This policy … needs to be paused, while the potential effects are properly analysed."
Additional proposals from the MoJ to alter "no win, no fee" agreements, so claimants have to pay their own lawyers' success fees, will also make it far harder for victims to bring claims, the Law Society said.
Des Hudson, its chief executive, argued the reforms will place insurance firms at "the heart of the civil justice system". He alleged: "These proposals will cause rejoicing in the boardrooms of insurance companies."
In a sign that the issue could follow NHS reforms by causing difficulties within the coalition, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert, has urged the government to "consider alternative proposals on legal aid to avoid a damaging effect on a number of vulnerable groups".
He said: "One of the basic pillars of our legal system is supposed to be that the law is accessible to all, not just those who can afford it. The government's proposals may have damaging effects on a number of vulnerable groups [including] women, asylum seekers, children and young people, all of whom are at risk of losing access to justice when they are often the people who need it most."
Other areas that will be severely affected by cuts to legal aid include housing, education and consumer rights.
Initially hesitant about campaigning against the coalition's plans to slice £350m million from the legal aid budget for fear that opposition will be portrayed as solicitors protecting their own incomes, the Law Society has decided to speak out.
Taxis emblazoned with the "Sound Off for Justice" logo, which is backed by the Law Society, have been touring London streets this week recording passengers' opinions in mobile sound booths about the threat of cuts to legal aid.
While the MoJ's impact assessment last autumn suggested 500,000 fewer cases would be entitled to funding, the Legal Action Group estimates the figure could be far higher, with as many as 650,000 removed from access to legal aid.
Reform of "no win, no fee" agreements proposed by Clarke would discourage lawyers from taking up public interest cases, it is claimed. "The litigation around Trafigura [which first highlighted the use of superinjunctions] would not have happened under the proposed changes," said Mark Stobbs, the Law Society's director of legal policy.
"In future if you are found to have acted 'unreasonably' as a claimant – and that might be as simple as refusing to accept an offer of settlement you disagreed with – then you couldn't guarantee that you couldn't lose your house [through liability for costs].
"Victims will get less for their injuries. The insurance companies will make extra profits and there's no example of insurance companies reducing their premiums."
The UK's legal industry, with an annual turnover of £18bn, could be severely damaged, the society claims. It has offered the government an alternative programme for saving £384m through reducing unnecessary court hearings and other efficiencies.
"We agree that there should be fewer cases," said Martin Heskins, policy adviser at the Law Society. "We are not being listened to. The government doesn't have the political will to address the root causes of costs in the legal system."
Only 5% of lawyers now rely on legal aid; the average salary of a legal aid lawyer is £25,000. "We would also like to see no individual lawyer making more than £250,000 a year from legal aid," Heskins added – a proposal unlikely to be welcomed by some senior barristers.
A reduction in legal aid is likely to lead to a surge in individuals taking their own cases to court because they cannot afford legal representation or advice, the society fears. Earlier this year the Judges' Council, which represents the judiciary, warned that an increase in "litigants in person" triggered by legal aid cuts would clog up the courts, imposing greater strains and costs on the system.
On Thursday the House of Lords will debate cuts to civil legal aid. The MoJ is expected to publish its legal aid bill early next month.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers dismissed the Law Society's criticism. "We are not rejoicing," he said, "but we are certainly supportive of the government's proposals. Motorists, who are paying an extra 10% on their motor insurance as a result of high legal costs in settling personal injury claims, can look forward to cheaper insurance in the future.
"We are not going to profit from this. We want genuine claimants to profit from this. We don't want to hinder access to justice."
source: guardian.co.uk
Personal Injury Claims
Medical Negligence Claims
