A few blogs
ago I raised the question about whether lawyers should pay a levy to cover the
cost of access to justice following the abolition of legal aid. The proposal
had come from the Law Centres’ Federation who said that if every solicitor paid
£25.00 a year that this would fund the provision of a lawyer in every Law
Centre thus opening the door for many to free legal assistance.
The
proposal seems to be popular with the public who recently voted in favour of
the idea in a Guardian poll –
But having
thought about it I’m afraid I do have major concerns. I also take on board the thoughful observation of Patrick Torsney at -
http://ilegality.tumblr.com/post/27119802861/chugging-the-lawyers
http://ilegality.tumblr.com/post/27119802861/chugging-the-lawyers
That is nothing to do
with paying the £25.00. I would happily pay that ensure that people of limited
means get access to lawyers. Indeed I would encourage any of my colleagues to
get involved in any voluntary initiatives. In Liverpool
we are hoping to put on a sponsored walk later in the year to raise funds for a
charity which funds pro bono, or to you and me, free legal work. Many lawyers
and their firms already do huge amounts of free work.
No – my main
concern is that the element of compulsion makes it a tax on lawyers to fund
legal work. Why should one professional group be forced to pay for work, which benefits
the whole community? Would anybody suggest that doctors should pay a surcharge
to fund the NHS or teachers pay extra to fund education? Why should those who
are committed to a sector then be called upon to fund it?
This
proposal overlooks the responsibility upon society as a whole to look after the
most vulnerable. If a £25 charge on lawyers would fund law centre lawyers then
it would cost the population pennies. This was the whole idea behind the legal
aid scheme which provided assistance for those in need at a relatively low cost
to the country. I have been a regular critic of the cuts. If the profession
ends up paying the government can look upon it as a job well done.
That is my
main objection.
This must
not be seen as a substitute for a properly funded legal aid scheme accessible
to all. The political argument must continue. It may be popular with guardian
readers but does that make it right?
