Funding barriers and the decline of young criminal defence solicitors

New research reveals criminal legal aid firms in England and Wales are running out of young solicitors, with potentially dire consequences for the sustainability of the duty solicitor scheme.

Data from the Legal Aid Agency and the Ministry of Justice shows that in 2023, just 8% of duty solicitors in England and Wales were aged under 34, while over a third (36%) were aged 55 and above. In raw numbers, this means 296 under-34s compared to 1,338 over-55s, making older solicitors the largest group in the scheme. The shift has been dramatic: since 2017, the number of under-34 duty solicitors has fallen by 80% (398 fewer), while the number aged 55 and over has risen by 11%.

Why does this matter? Because younger duty solicitors are not only the future workforce, they are also essential for learning from and eventually replacing the senior colleagues now approaching retirement (Johnston and Smith 2020). Without a steady influx of new solicitors, the scheme’s sustainability is under threat, and vital expertise risk disappearing with those who leave the profession.

In fact, this is already happening. Figures from 2024 confirm that 25 of the 190 duty solicitor schemes have fewer solicitors than required to provide daily coverage, with four schemes relying on just one solicitor and none at all available in Skegness.

There is also a question of public confidence. Duty solicitors form a crucial link between communities and the justice system, yet the profession looks very different from the people it serves. In 2024–25, 153,843 crime lower legal aid clients were aged 18–34, compared with just 35,354 aged 55 and over. This generational mismatch risks undermining trust, particularly among younger and more diverse communities, who may feel poorly represented by a workforce that does not reflect their lived experiences.

Why is the pipeline of younger solicitors drying up?

A recent pilot survey of 193 aspiring solicitors explored whether the cost of qualifying might be part of the problem. The survey revealed a strong and consistent link between the level of SQE funding and the perceived ease of specialising in criminal legal aid (CLA). Full funding of SQE fees was overwhelmingly seen as an enabler, with 95% of respondents stating it would make CLA specialisation easier. No respondents reported it would make it more difficult. 

Support remained high at 75% funding, but as the proportion of fees covered decreased, fewer respondents felt entry would be easier, while more perceived it as a barrier. At 50% funding, 67% still found it easier. This dropped to 43% at 25% funding. With no funding, 93% reported it would make specialisation more difficult. 

Among the 27 respondents who intended to pursue CLA work, the pattern was similar but more pronounced: almost all reported that full or substantial funding would facilitate specialisation, while reduced or no funding increasingly discouraged entry.

Social class influenced perceptions of funding barriers. Upper-middle-class intenders generally did not see 100–25% funding as a barrier, although all agreed that 0% funding would make specialisation harder. Middle-class participants showed mixed responses, with reduced funding increasingly perceived as a barrier. Working-class intenders were most affected: while 100% or 75% coverage was helpful, at 25% funding more than half reported it would make entry more difficult, and 0% funding was almost universally prohibitive. The sole lower-class respondent reported that any funding below 75% would make specialisation more difficult.

Overall, the findings highlight that SQE funding is a critical enabler for aspiring criminal defence solicitors, particularly for those from less advantaged backgrounds, and reductions in funding can significantly deter specialisation in CLA.

The message is simple: without financial support, many talented candidates are locked out before they even begin.

Missed Opportunities: How Policy Choices Worsen the Crisis

This is not a new problem. Lord Bellamy’s Independent Criminal Legal Aid Review recommended introducing training grants to help firms take on trainees and ensure the sustainability of the criminal legal aid profession. The Ministry of Justice initially allocated £2.5 million for this purpose but later redirected the money to increase police station fees after a consultation.

The consultation response, however, was deeply flawed. It relied on responses from just 85 individuals, a tiny fraction of the 10,520 solicitors practising in CLA at the time. The Government also appear to have selectively interpreted the results. In response to the consultation question about a training and accreditation grant programme and how it could make a career in criminal defence more attractive, the Government noted that respondents welcomed the grant, but the majority thought a fee increase would be more beneficial to the profession and do more to assist with recruitment and retention. By contrast, when the question was reframed under the theme of diversity, a majority expressed strong support for training grants as a way to boost recruitment and retention. Therefore, by focusing on the former and ignoring the latter, the Government privileged a narrow reading of the evidence over a fuller, more consistent analysis.

By rejecting training grants, the Government missed a crucial opportunity to make criminal legal aid careers more attractive. Instead, firms have been left with even fewer tools to attract trainees. The result is an ageing workforce, a shrinking pipeline, and a justice system in danger of being hollowed out from within.

The Urgent Need for Reform

Without urgent intervention, the ageing workforce and shrinking pipeline of new entrants threaten not only the sustainability of CLA firms, but also the quality and accessibility of CLA across England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice should therefore reconsider its decision not to implement training grants.

Based on existing evidence, two potential models could be revisited. The first would be to reinstate the discontinued Legal Services Commission’s 2002 Training Contracts Grant Scheme, which subsidised 75% of the Law Society’s minimum recommended trainee salary and covered LPC fees. The second, supported by Bacquet et al.’s findings and reflected in the Scottish Government’s 2021 scheme, would be a grant covering around 50% of trainee salaries and course fees, plus National Insurance contributions.

These recommendations are provisional. Ongoing research is assessing what level of salary support and SQE fee coverage would be most attractive to CLA firms and aspiring solicitors. Final evidence-based policy recommendations will depend on the results of this work.