Solicitors' Views on the Impact of the Civil Legal Aid Reform

Executive Summary of Research conducted by MORI

• Knowledge: The ma jority of solicitors feel they are knowledgeable about matters relating to civil legal aid reform (almost eight in ten said they were knowledgeable). Throughout the research it is interesting to note that there are very few instances where those who thought they were knowledgeable had significantly different opinions to those who said they were not knowledgeable. However, responses to some questions illustrate that some confusion exists. This is illustrated when asked who sets the fees for civil legal aid, 31% said the Board and 15% the Law Society, rather than the Scottish Executive.

• Commitment to legal aid: Six in ten solicitors surveyed said their firm would be certain to or likely to continue doing civil legal aid work in three years’ time, compared with three in ten who would not (not likely to/certain not to). Of this group, 9% said they were certain not to be doing civil legal aid work in three years time. The main reason firms envisaged stopping civil legal aid work was linked to the perception that it is no longer profitable for them to do and that they are better off doing other types of private work.

• Impact on case load: Very few solicitors said they are now doing more civil legal aid work since the reforms. Similar proportions feel they are doing less or about the same. Although, more solicitors said they are now doing less than more civil legal aid work since the reforms, encouragingly many solicitors are still taking on new clients.

• Fee rates: Only 4% of those surveyed said there had been a 21% increase in fees, the figure that has been stated in all civil reform communications, whilst in total 46% recognised that there had been an increase. However, there is a real perception among a significant proportion of solicitors that fees have not increased since the reforms were introduced in October 2003. Two in five said there has been no increase at all and three in five disagreed that better remuneration is paid for most cases. The qualitative research highlighted this also with many solicitors reporting that they are not being paid ‘adequately’ for the work they do.

• Fee issues: The ma jority of solicitors agreed that the account’s process has been simplified and that earlier payment is now received as cases progress through stage payments. However, the new ‘block fee’ system is perceived as being inappropriate particularly for complex family cases; high value/complex financial cases and actions involving difficult clients. There is overwhelming support for the changes to block fees already identified, with four in five solicitors in favour of the changes proposed.

• Administration and quality assurance: The reforms brought about various new procedures and processes within the civil legal aid system. Solicitors’ attitudes are, on the whole, favourable towards many of these changes - with the exception being the issue of increased administration levels. In particular, solicitors found the stage reporting process relatively easy to produce compulsory reports. The ma jority of solicitors who have had a Peer Review or administration audit have found that the newly introduced quality assurance system has improved their internal administration procedures. The ma jority of solicitors feel the revised application forms allow them to provide the necessary information, although some feel there are still too many unnecessary questions to answer, as well as too much supporting information being required. Opinions are more mixed as to whether the changes made to special urgency work has actually improved arrangements and whether or not it is now easier to get a block account settled by the Board.

• Guidance: Solicitors, on the whole, use the updates and guidance provided by the Board about the reform itself. There is a perception by a small minority that they do not have to read the guidance because they already know what to do without reading it or that they don’t, in fact, have the time to read the guidance.

• Financial eligibility: There is widespread recognition that clients now have more contact with the Board over financial eligibility queries since the reforms. Most solicitors do not want to be involved in financial eligibility, with two in three of solicitors surveyed saying they don’t want to be involved in financial eligibility at all, and a further one in five said they don’t want to be involved much. However, almost all solicitors surveyed maintain they do not refer clients to another organisation for assistance in financial eligibility matters, with most preferring to assist clients directly or that they hadn’t thought of doing it.

• Overall attitudes towards the reforms: On the whole, the ma jority of solicitors feel that some of the reforms have benefited them and their practice, by simplifying the accounts process with the introduction of the civil legal aid block fee system and allowing for earlier payment as cases progress through stage payments. However, on the issue of whether better remuneration is paid for most cases and the new system rewards efficient conduct of cases the ma jority tend to disagree with these statements.

• Recommendations for change: When asked to make two recommendations to the Scottish Legal Aid Board on how to improve the civil legal aid process the most commonly mentioned themes were: increasing fees and revising the ‘block fee’ system,making the ‘block fee’ system more flexible to take into account different types of cases,reducing the administrative burden, simplifying and speeding up processes, as well as simplifying the forms.