The rule of law cannot exist without access to justice. It is a fundamental right of every citizen. Any society that wishes to be thought of as just and fair needs to have mechanisms to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that its members are able to obtain justice properly. The rule of law is meaningless without justice being freely available.

Evidence shows that low-income groups tend to suffer more problems than higher income groups and are less likely to do anything about them. It is also apparent that many people are not sure where to go or whom to approach to obtain a resolution or redress to their problems. Currently there is a clear, unmet need for accessible and affordable sources of information and advice.

It is the duty of government to ensure that its citizens have access to justice. In any democracy, government has a duty to ensure that citizens are able to assert their rights in a way that does put them in an impecunious position. As it stands, the current legal aid system is completely unsustainable. It is not delivering genuine access to justice for the public, the government is not satisfied with it and the legal profession is forced to increasingly turn its back on the system.

Legal Aid reform has recently been a hot topic. Between 1997 and 2006 the cost of legal aid increased from 1.5 billion to 2.1 billion. This is no surprise when statistics show that from 1997 to 2009, 4,289 new criminal offences were created, which could well cause financial disaster or loss of liberty to an individual. The growing trend of such legislation in the criminal law obviously requires more trained lawyers to provide legal advice and assistance and even representation where loss of liberty could be a consequence. In civil legal aid, the 6th April 2009 saw the proportion of households qualifying for help under the civil legal aid scheme rise from 29% to 34%.

In March 2010 it was announced that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) (the body responsible for the provision for legal aid in England & Wales) is to be abolished after 10 years as part of changes to the way those with lower incomes access justice. The split of responsibilities between the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the LSC simply led to confusion and duplication of effort.

The distribution of civil and criminal legal aid in the future will be replaced by an executive agency in a move to regain control of government spending on legal aid. Not only will primary legislation be required for these changes but concerns have already been raised that giving the government control of the legal aid service would violate human rights and jeopardise the independence of legal services. Mechanisms will have to be devised to keep legal aid decisions away from political interference.

It is clear that the current system is unable satisfactorily to cope with the demands placed upon it. Many people are finding it increasingly difficult to find a lawyer ready, willing and able to take on legally aided cases. Others have to travel large distances or phone around organisations or law firms in order to find someone to take on their case. Sadly, many more give up without success.

Lawyers are also finding legal aid unattractive either as a business proposition or career path. The rewards are simply too low commensurate with what qualified professionals could reasonably expect. Furthermore, many lawyers are finding it difficult to take pragmatic, commercial decisions in an environment where the government dictates so much.

In terms of delivery of the legal services, the government and the LSC appear to be looking to support larger providers and organisers at the expense of the traditional providers of legal aid. Part of this process entails larger organisations providing telephone advice. The question must be asked as to whether quality legal advice could be provided over the telephone? An individual seeking access to justice needs to have a one to one with their legal advisor to enable instructions to be sought, evidence to be gathered and legal issues and next steps to be explained. A one to one is also important in establishing a relationship of trust and confidence between the client and his or her legal advisor/representative. The idea of telephone advice may result in larger numbers of people receiving some form of legal advice, but its quality and overall effectiveness will in many instances be limited.

To some extent it is pleasing that technological advances have suggested that advice could be given remotely, however, what seems to have been overlooked is what factors may inhibit such steps – for example, the rules on professional conduct and the regulatory system, data security and client confidentiality issues.

The promotion of the Public Legal Education Network is envisaged by the government. This range of activities and initiatives aims to improve people’s lives and empower communities. The promise of Public Legal Education is that it can transform the effectiveness of legal advice and advocates that better legal know-how prevents problems, encourages people to act early to stop problems escalating and assists people to manage the problems that do arise, including knowing when to get legal advice. Knowledge of this service that is a network of organisations and individuals is not fully known across the public, private or voluntary sectors. Whilst on its face this idea would go someway to meet the current access to justice gap, if a strong level of expertise is not constantly in place to effectively diagnose an array of problems, then the PLE does not serve a purpose. Moreover, if this form of legal help and assistance is not performed appropriately, further costs and delays will invariably arise as the client will have to find other methods of accessing justice.

Community Legal Advice Centres (CLACs) would be jointly commissioned with local authorities to provide legal advice on benefits and tax credits, debt, employment, housing, community care and family law. These would be geographical schemes that in effect would operate a local monopoly for social welfare law services. The foreseeable problems with such a model for access to justice are:

* Would clients outside the local catchment area be excluded from legal services provisions?

* Can CLACs act independently of the local authority that provides its funding?

* What would happen if conflicts of interest scenarios arise? Alternative local means of supplying legal services would all but have vanished

* Would local ethnic and community groups be denied the advice and support of those who understand background cultural issues?

* The cost of setting up CLACs would be significant

Although CLAC’s were designed to remedy the lack of comprehensive social welfare law advice, they must not come at the expense of other important factors that could equally hinder effective access to justice. Additionally, the effectiveness of such schemes would need to be assessed and monitored to show value for money before any nationwide roll out.

It is clear that the legal landscape for access to justice has changed from when the LSC was set up. The MoJ has announced that there will not be any more money available for legal aid in the future. In fact, there could well be less. Financial controls on public money for legal aid have led the government to look laterally (as opposed to vertically) at policy development and operational delivery. Community collaboration is very high on the government’s legal aid reform programme. Those aspects notwithstanding, the one size fits all approach being adopted by the government that favours the creation of the larger legal aid practices risk jeopardising the current market provisions. The government is aiming to make savings by benefiting from economies of scale in terms of delivering legal aid; however, it is highly questionable if savings will actually be made if sustainability, quality, efficiency and access to justice are compromised in the process.

Whilst legal aid was never set up as a universal service like the NHS was, it cannot continue to fail those very people in society that it was designed to assist. A clear and fresh perspective to access to justice and the provision of legal services needs to be undertaken. It will certainly be interesting to monitor the developments regarding the creation of the agreed executive agency to replace the LSC and how legal aid decisions will be taken in the future. Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, stated that ‘The purpose of the law is to produce justice’. Many of the government’s proposed reforms are not meeting this aim.

The cartoon satire of law and lawyers that has been appearing in “The Times” Newspaper for the last 15 years now has a website.  Click on (and enjoy) http://www.qccartoon.com/

In a trial in a small Texas town, the prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand a grandmotherly, elderly woman.

He approached her and asked: ‘Mrs Jones, do you know me’?

‘Why, yes Mr Williams.  I’ve known you since you were a boy, and frankly, you’ve been a big disappointment.  You lie, cheat on your wife and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs.  You think you’re a big shot when you haven’t the brains to realise that you will never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher.  Yes, I know you’.

The lawyer was stunned.  Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked: ‘Mrs Jones, do you know the defence attorney’?

She replied: ‘Why yes, I do.  I’ve known Mr Bradley since he was a youngster, too.  He’s lazy, bigoted and has a drinking problem.  His law practice is one of the worst in the entire state.  Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women.  Yes, I know him’.

At this point, the judge called both attorneys to the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said: ‘if either of you asks her if she knows me, you’ll be jailed for contempt’!

Counsel: ‘By that time you were as drunk as a judge, weren’t you?’
Judge: Mr Smith, the usual expression is ‘as drunk as a lord’.
Counsel: ‘As your lordship pleases’.

Fortune teller: ‘Prepare yourself for a shock. 
Your husband is going to die a violent death within a year’.
Woman: ‘And will I be acquitted?’

Judge: ‘I am sentencing you to six months in prison’
Defendant: ‘Ha, I’ll do that standing on my head!’
Judge: ‘Then make than twelve months it will give you time to get back on your feet’.

A woman was suing her neighbour for slander and defamation of character.  Under cross-examination, her counsel asked her to tell the Court exactly what words the neighbour had used.  ‘Oh, I couldn’t do that, sir,’ protested the woman.  ‘The things she said weren’t fit for any decent person to hear’. 
‘All right’, said counsel.  ‘Just come over here and whisper them to the judge’.