Editor's blog | Kindness of strangers

The legal aid reforms that started rolling out last week are predicated on two inter-related assumptions. One, that the legal aid budget has been allowed to spiral out of control and that the government should now apply the brakes. The other, that the private and not-for-profit sectors will step in to fill the gap. In most cases, the remaining providers are expected to completely reshape delivery models, with little assistance from the government.

In an ironic twist, it is a private initiative unveiled this week which has highlighted the extent of the consequences for the profession. A survey carried out by the Warwick University Centre for Human Rights in Practice for the social justice forum iLegal suggests that a quarter of legal aid providers expect to close down in the next two years, with one in three practitioners saying they were likely to be made redundant.

For the general public who cannot readily afford professional advice, this is one step closer to the legal aid desert predicted back in the early years of the 21st century when the previous government introduced fixed fees.

At the time, law firms and other providers had a choice: to continue by entering the unpredictable three year contract waltz, or not. At least, if they did, they would get paid. It was all about efficiencies and value for money.

The choice today is different. The latest reforms have taken vast areas of practice out of scope altogether, leaving two questions unanswered. First, how can providers willing to remain active in the areas affected keep their organisations going, and second, how will individuals in need of legal advice access it.

Not-for-profit providers face heightened challenges, with local authorities withdrawing funding and dual compliance requirements as charities and legal advice providers. One bit of good news is that after pressure from the LSB, law centres will now be able to charge for their services following an SRA rule change introduced to coincide with LASPO coming into force.

Two summers ago Islington law centre head Ruth Hayes explained how her organisation had already diversified its income stream, with revenue coming from 15 different sources - most of which were about to disappear. Charging appeared to be the next natural move, together with the setting up of an ABS.

But, as evidenced by the Warwick survey, whose respondents were 65 per cent from the nfp sector, being able to charge is only a small step forward for these providers. It also revealed inequalities, with the North-South divide being the sharpest. The geographical split is essentially a reflection of the economics of the sector. Most of the funding in the North is coming from local authorities and public bodies whose own budgets are cut, while in the South providers can still count on large commercial firms coming up with some cash and fielding volunteers.

Support from sources such as the Advice Transition Fund is undoubtedly useful in helping the sector re-engineer itself, but ultimately, one question remains: will an NHS-type LawDirect service connecting people to affordable solutions really plug the gap, or will access to legal support become a postcode lottery with clients left to rely on the kindness of strangers.