Carolyn Regan, the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, gave a speech at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum on 9 February entitled ‘60 years of legal aid – next steps for reform’. It was not a speech designed to endear herself to the solicitors’ profession – but then she accepts that her role is unlikely to make her popular.

Little credit is given to the LSC’s solicitor provider base, notwithstanding their continued commitment to deliver legal aid services to the most needy members of society. In particular, she said that:Is this something to be proud of? Budgets should rise when more cases need to be funded, when more needy people require access to justice and fall into the legal aid ‘net’ – such as in these recessionary times. When the system requires work to be done it must be paid for, and it is the government that controls the system.

  • the LSC has ‘stabilised the amount spent annually on legal aid’ and that without the recent ‘reforms’ the annual legal aid budget would already have reached £2.7bn.

Legal aid solicitors understand the word ‘reforms’ in this way – they are ‘cuts’ made without regard to the future viability of a hard-pressed and diminishing supplier base.Is she referring to the recently ‘pulled’ best value tendering (BVT) proposals in criminal legal aid work? BVT is certainly said to be ‘currently being re-evaluated’. More accurately, the Ministry of Justice ‘invited’ the LSC to withdraw its BVT proposals – a three-line whip?

  • many of the LSC’s proposed/introduced changes ‘have met with opposition from some providers’ and that this is often ‘presented as blanket opposition by representative bodies’.

Much effort was expended by the Law Society in explaining that the LSC’s BVT proposals were inappropriate. When the need for a proper pilot was finally accepted, the LSC seemed to have no understanding or concern for those practitioners affected. No bouquets here either.

Carolyn Regan also alluded to criticism the LSC has received for its management of the legal aid fund, saying that it has ‘already recovered £2.5m over the past six months in incorrect claims’. Is she saying that it is our fault?

Unnecessary complicationsThe fact that overclaims are in part due to the system created by the LSC being unnecessarily complicated, and that incorrect claims have frequently arisen due to confusing LSC guidance and the wrong assessment of means by bodies such as magistrates’ courts, was not mentioned. And it would be interesting to know the anticipated value of underclaims.

The National Audit Office’s recent comments were not mentioned. It said that 16% of legal aid firms make no profit whatsoever, while another 14% make just 1-5% profit. ‘Profit’ represents the actual salaries – or lack of them – of the partners in those firms. Does the LSC understand this?

Has the LSC commissioned any economic research as to the viability of its suppliers? Surely this is how to judge whether there is a ‘looming crisis in the legal profession’? Not by how many students have applied for places on the bar vocational course!

Frankly, Ms Regan’s speech emphasises, once again, that the LSC either does not understand its prime supplier base or does not want to try and understand it.

The Public Accounts Committee recently reported on the procurement of criminal legal aid by the LSC. This report criticised the commission’s failure to understand its suppliers and their profitability, and its inability to determine whether its reforms are working or the impact they are having on sustainability.

The Law Society will soon publish its review of access to justice in England and Wales, to lead a debate about how this can be maintained and improved, and to highlight the work done by many increasingly ‘put upon’ and seemingly undervalued members of our profession.

Andrew Caplen is chair of the Law Society’s Access to Justice Committee