Exchange Chambers

Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, has the task of deciding how to save up to a quarter of the £2.1bn legal aid budget. However he deeply he applies the knife, the effect will be felt by everyone involved in the publicly funded justice system and the very system of justice itself is in peril.

The legal aid scheme in England and Wales is the envy of the world. It provides vital help for people who would otherwise be unable to protect their rights and interests - those who have suffered injustice, injury or loss, those who are involved in the breakdown of their family life and those facing criminal charges.

No one fighting for their rights chooses to do so. Circumstances force them and legal aid helps those who do not have the means to pay lawyers privately.

Legal aid is not free. Contributions are paid according to means or from successful financial settlements. But a reduction in the overall legal aid budget will have an immediate and direct effect on everyone who needs to rely on it.

There are already restrictions - not every case qualifies for assistance by legal aid. Not all criminal cases in the magistrates' are covered and cases before the civil courts are only backed by legal aid if the prospects of success meet the legal aid criteria.

A reduction in the amount of government money to pay for legal aid will have to be achieved in a number of ways. Exactly how the savings will be made is presently under consideration by the Justice Minister, but there are a number of areas which may well come under the spotlight.

First, the criteria for cases that qualify for legal aid might be restricted. That would mean that it would be more difficult to get legal aid assistance in the first place so that fewer people would qualify for legal aid overall.

Second, the administration of the legal aid scheme could be "streamlined" - in other words, fewer civil servants with greater workloads dealing with the applications for legal aid. That is likely to mean that the process of applying for legal aid may well become slower.

Third, it is almost certain that the means testing element will come under scrutiny. If more people who are granted legal aid are required to pay a contribution towards it themselves, savings will be made. So the cost of legal aid to those who do qualify may well be increased.

Fourth, the government could encourage "efficiencies" in the way in which the lawyers work. At present, solicitors enter a contract with the Legal Services Commission to provide legal aid services. The Ministry of Justice could, through the legal aid contracts, regulate the way in which solicitors and barristers work in the future; a prospect which few in the professions relish.

Fifth, there have already been suggestions that the legal aid contracts be given to the lowest bidders, which has caused many solicitors to question whether legal aid work will be financially viable.

Looking at these options that Ken Clarke may have at his disposal to achieve the savings required of him by the Treasury, it seems very likely that the future of legal aid is one where fewer people will qualify for legal aid in the first place, that it may cost more for those who do qualify to use legal aid and that fewer solicitors and barristers will undertake legal aid work.

There is a prospect that the shrinking of the legal aid budget may well exclude a section of society - those who do not qualify for legal aid, but who cannot afford to pay their own legal fees.

For the lawyers, the prospect of working in an increasingly restricted and less well paid legal aid scheme is likely to discourage them from taking on legal aid cases. Increasingly, the most able young lawyers are turning away from publicly funded work in favour of other, more lucrative areas of practice.

A world class legal aid system requires investment with able and motivated people to run it. The cuts which Ken Clarke has been asked to deliver will do nothing to maintain the quality of our legal aid scheme. In addition, there is no safeguard against more savings being required in future years.

A system of justice is fundamental to the fabric of our daily lives. The Treasury should realize that there is no price tag that can be applied to justice. Once the door to legal aid is closed to a section of our society, we will no longer have a system which provides justice for all: one standard for those who can pay and bargain basement for the rest, if we are lucky.

Adrian Farrow
Exchange Chambers