Introduction
The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) is a United Kingdom legislation established to reform the justice system (“The Legal Aid,” 2020). Its primary aims include lowering the cost of providing legal assistance and ensuring that government resources are devoted solely to assisting individuals who cannot afford legal representation in circumstances where their rights and freedoms are at risk.
Nevertheless, people have complained that the Act has dramatically restricted access to justice in civil litigation since its inception. This is because it has affected several areas of litigation critical to civil justice, including reducing legal representation and legal aid. This essay will critically analyze this assumption and determine whether the primary objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 can still be accomplished despite cuts to legal aid and legal representation.
Impact of LASPO 2012 on Legal Aid and Access to Civil Justice
One way through which LASPO has restricted civil litigation is by reducing the availability of legal aid. Currently, only a small proportion of civil cases involving asylum, domestic violence, and child protection are subject to legal aid. This indicates that many individuals who previously qualified for these funds have now been excluded.
The legal assistance reduction mainly affects marginalized and vulnerable persons. Such individuals often have multiple legal matters, including housing disputes, family law disputes, and employment law issues, which are not eligible for legal aid. The vast majority of these persons are forced to represent themselves in court. People who represent themselves in court, often referred to as litigants in person (LIPs), typically lack the legal expertise and skills necessary to succeed in their cases. Thus, limited access to legal aid affects both legal representation and access to justice.
Furthermore, LASPO has narrowed the scope of its legal aid package. It has limited access to legal aid in several areas, including employment, social payments, and some family law issues. The reduction in legal aid for employment law is critical, as most workers may be unable to afford representation in cases involving their employment rights. Similarly, limiting legal aid to family law cases has been criticized because these cases are often challenging for unrepresented individuals to win. Furthermore, the restriction of legal aid for social payments has served as an obstacle, particularly for those seeking to challenge the state’s decisions regarding their eligibility for benefits.
Moreover, LASPO has reduced legal aid rates, making it difficult for solicitors to assist even those who qualify for legal aid. Legal aid rates have been reduced in several areas of law, including family law, criminal law, and immigration law. This reduction has made many lawyers hesitant to accept legal aid cases because their compensation does not correspond to the level of services expected.
The overall number of legal aid lawyers has also decreased as many leave for higher-paying areas of the law. Additionally, the cut has led to a decline in the quality of services provided by lawyers, as experienced lawyers leave the legal aid field in search of better opportunities. Additionally, many lawyers allocate less time to legal aid cases, which can lead to errors in representing clients. This significantly affects those who rely on legal aid for litigation, as they may need more representation to win their cases.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Post-LASPO
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 were enacted to regulate and standardize civil court proceedings. One of its primary goals was to help each case reach a fair resolution at a reasonable expense. Unfortunately, this goal may prove difficult due to cuts in legal aid and representation. For instance, if one party is represented while the other is not, the outcome of the case will likely be unfair.
Unrepresented litigants may find it challenging to present their cases effectively and may need assistance in identifying significant legal issues or facts that could support their claims. As a result, the represented party may have an unfair advantage over the unrepresented party. In response, the courts have issued rules establishing procedures for dealing with LIPs, although this has not entirely solved the problem.
Conclusion
To conclude, LASPO was established to reduce the price of legal aid while ensuring that public funds were used to help only those who couldn’t afford legal representation and whose rights and freedoms were at risk. However, people have complained that it has hindered access to justice in civil lawsuits since its inception. The reductions in legal aid and access to legal representation have significantly affected vulnerable and marginalized individuals, making it difficult for them to obtain justice.
These cuts also influence the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which aim to standardize civil litigation procedures and achieve a fair and just settlement at a reasonable cost. A party with legal representation may have an unfair advantage over the unrepresented one. The courts have established rules to address the issue, but have not succeeded in completely solving it.
Reference List
Laspo Act. The Law Society. (n.d.), Web.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d). Rule 17. Subpoena. Legal Information Institute, Web.
No, win, no fee funding arrangements – House of Commons Library. (n.d), Web.
The Legal Aid, sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Public Law Project. 2020, Web.