In search of new models for legal aid

People self-filtering out of legal aid is perhaps the government's greatest cause for celebration in the wake of relentless cost-cutting measures.

Not only are millions being instantly saved by taking areas such as family and immigration out of scope, millions more are being kept in the banks as those who have remained eligible for publicly funded legal advice believe that they're not.

Maybe the government didn't intend things to play out in this way but the message conveyed in the general media seems to be such that clients who still qualify are not aware of it.

The situation seems to be most acute in family law, where legal aid is still in place for mediation but few people seem to know about it. Mediation for family law clients has been the government's flagship policy. By keeping it within scope, it wants to demonstrate that while being tough on costs, it's offering alternatives that are cheaper and just as effective.

Without positive information, however, clients are unlikely to find out, resulting in the self-filtering problem. So market forces kick in: that's lawyers coming up with their own alternatives such as unbundling, the odd private initiative exploring low-cost non-traditional ways of delivering legal advice such as Instant Law's webcams, or not-for-profit legal advice organisations charging for services.

For the majority of ordinary people in 2014, the reality of accessible legal advice is that it is no longer free. The cost may be minimal in some cases but advice has to be paid for. For most law centres, charging has also become essential to their survival.

But let's look at the situation from the other end. There is still about £1bn allocated to civil legal aid. Family mediation aside and some limited telephone advice, most of it will be spent on traditional face-to-face services. There has been no serious attempt at exploring alternative mechanisms.

This lack of initiative and interest in innovative models is precisely what former head of Justice Roger Smith has highlighted in a report published earlier this week.

Smith suggests that publicly funded legal advice should be delivered through a 'digital first' strategy, where an online platform is the default access point but where telephone and face-to-face remain an option for clients with no internet access, complex cases or for vulnerable clients.

His main comparison is a Dutch initiative, under way, which aims to provide a seamless advice path, starting with self-help tools on a central government-supported website, through to face-to-face advice by a qualified lawyer.

On the subject of the Netherlands, it's also worth mentioning a dispute-resolution scheme by Modria, a hybrid initiative set up by the former head of dispute resolution at eBay and PayPal, both of which have online dispute resolution facilities. It's got government support and is piloted with the assistance of judges in low-value neighbour disputes.

Smith also says that the challenge is not one of the public sector alont to deal with. The private sector should be encouraged to play a part, he says, pointing to organisations such as Cooperative Legal Services as examples of new models leveraging the potential of the web to engage with clients.

What this shows is that with the right government impetus the market can probably come up with solutions that will keep costs low and deliver the advice needed at the same time. Assuming that the government still believes it has a duty to provide access to justice. That, sadly, is what is currently lacking in this country.

Jean-Yves Gilg is editor of Solicitors Journal

jean-yves.gilg@solicitorsjournal.co.uk

.