As uncertainty over the future of legal aid contracts deters firms from taking on the expense and commitment of traineeships, one wonders who is going to train the next generation.

Two weeks ago, I attended the Legal Aid Practitioners Group annual gathering in Leeds. Given the tough time that legal aid lawyers are having – or perhaps because of them – the turnout was very good, with a large contingent of young lawyers and students. This was due in part to some student places being funded by the Legal Services Commission and the College of Law.

The session run by Young Legal Aid Lawyers was impressive, and the enthusiasm and commitment of those present to help vulnerable clients was evident.

The following Friday I attended the Criminal Law Solicitors Association conference in Coventry. Two things struck me. First, there didn’t seem to be any representatives from the largest criminal law firms, but that’s another story.

Second, while there was a high proportion of senior practitioners, some pretty close to retirement, there was no one under the age of 40.

This led me to wonder: will there be jobs in legal aid for the enthusiastic students I encountered in Leeds?

I shared my thoughts with the Law Society’s legal aid guru Richard Miller, who warns in this week’s Gazette of a ‘demographic time bomb’ facing the profession, as the number of solicitors choosing to do criminal work declines.

Omar Khan, a member of YLAL’s executive committee, explains that this is attributable to uncertainty over pay and procurement changes, which mean it is more prudent for firms to hire paralegals rather than invest in expensive training contracts.

YLAL has for some time been concerned about the jobs for legal aid lawyers and the ability of people from less well-off backgrounds to afford to practise in legal aid.

In a report published earlier this year, it warned that low pay, poor morale and firm closures, coupled with the ‘complete dearth’ of training opportunities and an increased need for students to do unpaid work experience, is making it harder than ever for those from poorer backgrounds to build a career in legal aid.

Though these problems are felt across the legal aid spectrum, they affect those who want to specialise in crime most of all, because criminal work is almost solely dependent on legal aid. Lawyers cannot do private work to compensate, as they might do in family work, for example.

Khan suggests that the answer is to bring back the LSC grants that helped enable firms to take on trainees, and says the government should give priority in the tendering process to firms with a good track record of recruiting trainees, with a condition that firms who are given contracts invest in traineeships.

However, given the financial constraints on the LSC, it is hard to see money being made available to reinstate the grants, and with many firms keeping a close eye on their finances, it seems unlikely that many will be able to afford the time and money required to train new recruits.

Laura Janes, YLAL chair, is bold in stating time and again that many young lawyers still do want to go into legal aid work. But will the short-termism that characterises the government’s attitude to spending on legal aid mean the end of the road for the next generation of legal aid lawyers?

And will it be left to unqualified paralegals and pro bono lawyers to safeguard the rights of society’s most vulnerable?