THE IMPACT OF LEGAL AID CUTS

Why is it so controversial? Well contrary to the title the law will impact on a
wide variety of people seeking redress from the courts. It will remove legal
aid from areas such as medical negligence, housing, employment, welfare and
family disputes.

However, it's not just about removing the ability to be represented, your access to justice will also be restricted as you are forced to manage your own legal affairs before the court without appropriate legal advice, impacting on your right to a fair trial. The injustice is apparent where one party; for example, can afford legal representation and the other can't. Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger is worried about the cuts to civil legal aid. He stated that the rule of law will be undermined as "people will feel like the government isn't giving them access to justice in all sorts of cases". Will people start to take the law into their own as he feared?

JP Legal Director, Paula Rhone-Adrien practising Barrister and Mediator is often confronted by distressed and frustrated litigants who already feel demoralised by the process and thinks they will. The cost of obtaining quality legal advice is becoming prohibitive, the delay in obtaining a conclusion to proceedings is lengthy and therefore costly and most importantly, the outcome is often disappointing. Paula agrees that litigants feel let down by the law, particular at a time when they are most vulnerable. Take the example of enforcing  a county court judgment. First you pay your court fees, locate the defendant (who may have gone into hiding), wait for your case to be heard, which will take many months, succeed in your application and then find that you have to pay for the court judgment to be enforced. Unfortunately, only 1 in 4 claimants will receive "part" of the money that they claim.

Couple this with the complicated features of applying the law to your case and one can sympathise with the frustration of the litigant. The coalition government have promised £35 million so far to assist agencies to advertise and market Mediation in the hope that parties will utilise the skills of a mediator to facilitate an agreement as opposed to going to court. However, Paula's experience is that people don't understand the mediation process or simply prefer a Judge to make a decision.

Paula's experience of mediating is very different, with parties achieving a satisfactory and long lasting agreement, that in some cases is endorsed by the court. In one example, Paula mediated a construction dispute where neither party wanted to mediate, but they realised that the cost implications outweighed the risks of going to court and winning. So they spent a day thrashing out the issues, with the assistance of an expert and walked out at the end of the day saving their business relationship. Another example, is of Paula mediating a family dispute where there were significant assets and two teenage children. Even though there were serious trust issues the parties were still able to deal with those issues and reach a satisfactory outcome, which was endorsed by the court saving significant legal fees.

The point is most litigating parties will have some form of continuing relationship, this can be saved where the matter is mediated as opposed to litigated, where the frustration and win/lose ethos is removed from the dispute. Its that urge to win that will drive people to take the law into their own hands. Paula has had experience of parties committing acts of domestic violence, having never done so before, due to becoming frustrated and traumatised by the process. Paula has experience of parties attempting commercial espionage to put pressure on a litigating opponent in the hope that they will drop their case. Paula's advice to prospective litigants and those currently in litigation is to take the step of moving away from the court system and consider mediation.