*/
SOME of the most vulnerable children in society will lose out as a result of plans to slash legal representation in publicly funded family law cases.
The Legal Services Commission has used a private media briefing to let it be known that it is planning to reduce by 15% funding for representation by barristers for such cases, many of which involve the protection of children at risk and the most vulnerable in our society.
Commenting on the developments, Lucy Theis QC, Chair of the Family Law Bar Association, said:
‘The protection of children is a concern to all of us. There is often no second chance when children are at risk of harm. At a time when senior family judges are publicly raising concern that the system is creaking at the seams the LSC seem intent on putting it under increasing pressure – children, parents and the administration of the Courts will suffer. The removal of a child from his or her natural
parents by the State has rightly been described as one of the most draconian orders that can be made. It is the parents and children with no voice who will be left with either no representation or no experienced representation when the State wants to take their children into care. It is that stark. The expertise of the barristers who practice in this area of the law is relied upon by both the litigants and the judges. Further cuts will not only reduce those who are willing to undertake this important work but also discourage those from wanting to specialise in this area.
It should come as no surprise that the Legal Services Commission hasn’t got the courage publicly to announce this latest assault on legal aid. They have produced no detailed information or public document to support their assertions but instead, it appears, drip fed information to the press.
In doing so, it has breached its own Code of Conduct on Consultation. This is matter of regret when the FLBA has sought to engage the LSC in constructive discussions. The Constitutional Affairs Committee in May 2007 commented on the breakdown of the relationship between the LSC and suppliers as being a ‘disquieting aspect’ of their inquiry. The Committee continued ‘This has recently come to a crisis point. Before any successful reform can be implemented, the two sides must rebuild a sense of trust in each other.’ In behaving as it has, the LSC has shown that it remains unwilling to rebuild the trust of the professions. That sense of trust is essential to a system that properly protects children and their families.
In targeting vulnerable children with these latest planned cuts at a time when robust legal representation is most needed, the LSC will deny justice to those who otherwise have no voice in the system.’
The FLBA will be seeking urgent clarification as to the LSC’s intentions. It is time for the full facts, not just the spin.’
The Legal Services Commission has used a private media briefing to let it be known that it is planning to reduce by 15% funding for representation by barristers for such cases, many of which involve the protection of children at risk and the most vulnerable in our society.
Commenting on the developments, Lucy Theis QC, Chair of the Family Law Bar Association, said:
‘The protection of children is a concern to all of us. There is often no second chance when children are at risk of harm. At a time when senior family judges are publicly raising concern that the system is creaking at the seams the LSC seem intent on putting it under increasing pressure – children, parents and the administration of the Courts will suffer. The removal of a child from his or her natural
parents by the State has rightly been described as one of the most draconian orders that can be made. It is the parents and children with no voice who will be left with either no representation or no experienced representation when the State wants to take their children into care. It is that stark. The expertise of the barristers who practice in this area of the law is relied upon by both the litigants and the judges. Further cuts will not only reduce those who are willing to undertake this important work but also discourage those from wanting to specialise in this area.
It should come as no surprise that the Legal Services Commission hasn’t got the courage publicly to announce this latest assault on legal aid. They have produced no detailed information or public document to support their assertions but instead, it appears, drip fed information to the press.
In doing so, it has breached its own Code of Conduct on Consultation. This is matter of regret when the FLBA has sought to engage the LSC in constructive discussions. The Constitutional Affairs Committee in May 2007 commented on the breakdown of the relationship between the LSC and suppliers as being a ‘disquieting aspect’ of their inquiry. The Committee continued ‘This has recently come to a crisis point. Before any successful reform can be implemented, the two sides must rebuild a sense of trust in each other.’ In behaving as it has, the LSC has shown that it remains unwilling to rebuild the trust of the professions. That sense of trust is essential to a system that properly protects children and their families.
In targeting vulnerable children with these latest planned cuts at a time when robust legal representation is most needed, the LSC will deny justice to those who otherwise have no voice in the system.’
The FLBA will be seeking urgent clarification as to the LSC’s intentions. It is time for the full facts, not just the spin.’
SOME of the most vulnerable children in society will lose out as a result of plans to slash legal representation in publicly funded family law cases.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
