The government’s ‘crude and brutal’ legal aid cuts will trigger a surge in ‘DIY litigants’ that risks ‘gridlock’ in the courts, the Bar Council has warned.

Responding to the government’s consultation on legal aid, which closes today, the bar’s representative body said the cuts, which are aimed at saving £350 million, could end up costing rather than saving tax payers’ money, with a devastating effect on access to justice.

It said that a wholesale withdrawal of legal aid in some practice areas means there is almost certain to be a significant increase in ‘litigants in person’ as more people have to go to court alone to fight their case.

Chairman of the Family Law Bar Association Stephen Cobb QC, who led the Bar Council’s response, said: ‘We fear these attempted cuts, being so crude and brutal, will cost more than they save.

'They will trigger a surge in DIY litigants which risks gridlock in the courts, as they struggle to get justice.’

Cobb said the proposals did not ‘add up’ and had not been properly impact-assessed. Their effect on the administration of justice, the running of the courts, and the burden on other government departments, could cost the government the same amount it was seeking to save.

Cobb said the bar understands that the government needs to save money and supports the drive to reduce waste and bureaucracy, but wants to ensure that where cuts are made, access to justice does not suffer.

He warned that the government’s proposals would lead to host of problems: those suffering serious psychological abuse may be left unrepresented in private law family proceedings; parents, without representation, could face the removal of their children into care; and consumers suffering at the hands of negligent corporate entities may have to fund their own claims.

Cobb said the cuts would damage the future quality and diversity of the legal profession, as young barristers, already burdened with the debts of their education, would be forced to leave publicly funded practice, as it did not offer a financially viable career path.

Cobb added that the proposals were contrary to the regulatory objectives underpinning the recent legal services reforms, not least the objective of improving access to justice.

The bar’s response is the culmination of a forensic three-month scrutiny of the green paper.

Responding to the consultation on reform of the costs of civil litigation, the Bar Council said that litigation costs needed to be reduced, but warned that significant threats to access to justice must be addressed, and one size cannot fit all in litigation.

The bar agreed that claimants should have a stake in the litigation they choose to bring, but said it should not be at the expense of access to justice.

Christopher Hancock QC, chairman of the Commercial Bar Association, said: ‘We accept that methods to reduce costs in the litigation process which are disproportionate must be found.

'We also broadly welcome the proposals for large disputes, where there are no issues regarding funding or access to justice.’

But he added: ‘We are concerned that in many cases these proposals will lead to acute problems for litigants seeking access to justice.

'The combination of cuts to legal aid and plans which will impact severely on funding of smaller cases must not be allowed to exclude whole categories of parties from the ability to seek legal redress.’