High Court rules family contract round unlawful

The Legal Services Commission's family legal aid tender round severely hindered access to justice for vulnerable clients, the High Court said earlier this afternoon as it ruled the commission's decision allocating new contracts unlawful.

'I have a future,' smiled a female BME lawyer as she left court.

Giving his ruling ex tempore, Mr Justice Moses said firms that previously had a family legal aid contract with the LSC would be able to continue to work under its terms for the time being and that the new contracts allocated following the latest bid round would be quashed.

However, most of the practical details required to give effect to the judge's decision were left to be finalised at a later stage still to be determined.

Moses J made the ruling after a three-day hearing in judicial review proceedings brought by the Law Society.

Dinah Rose QC, for the Law Society, argued that the LSC criterion which required solicitors to be panel members was deliberately designed to exclude certain applicants and was therefore 'unfair, arbitrary and irrational'.

The new contracts were due to come into effect on 14 October and would have seen the number of family legal aid firms drop from 2,400 to 1,300.

Law Society president Linda Lee said the society had been 'disappointed to have been left with no choice but to take legal action against the LSC, which refused to acknowledge the detrimental effect that this outcome would have on families'.

She added: 'The failure of the LSC to anticipate, let alone manage, the outcome of the process was the latest and perhaps most alarming of the LSC's apparently haphazard attempts to reshape legal aid.'

'The Law Society has always maintained that this wholly unplanned major restructuring of the legal aid market would cause immense uncertainly and instability for many of the poorest and most vulnerable,' Lee continued.

Legal Services Commission chair Sir Bill Callaghan said the commission had always been committed to ensuring that vulnerable people across England and Wales had access to justice.

'Whatever we do will continue to be motivated by this imperative,' he commented. 'We are currently considering the detail of the judgment and its implications, including whether to appeal. We are conscious of the uncertainty facing providers and will publish further information in due course.'