Legal aid solicitors are increasingly vocal about feeling overlooked and exploited in the wake of LASPO cuts, as revealed in a recent academic study.
Dr Olubunmi Onafuwa, a senior lecturer at the University of East London, has highlighted the diminishing condition of legal aid, describing it as a ‘disappearing phenomenon’. She attributed this decline to the persistent issues stemming from LASPO cuts. Solicitors report feeling unsupported and exploited, being contractually restricted from striking, unlike their barrister counterparts.
Barristers, when striking, often face public misconceptions about their earnings, which they argue are inaccurate considering the inadequate compensation they receive for their work. This discrepancy has forced them to defend their professional decisions and the integrity of their protests.
Dr Onafuwa’s study, published in Legal Ethics, shifts focus onto the vulnerabilities faced by legal aid providers rather than their clients. These challenges are exacerbated by low pay, leading young lawyers into financial difficulties, often compounded by student debt and limited training opportunities after qualifying.
As a result, many are leaving the sector for more lucrative legal fields, such as corporate or intellectual property law, thereby widening the expertise gap within public defence. Interviews with legal professionals reveal a drastic decline in morale, as their original motivations to support the underprivileged are overshadowed by economic struggles.
The LASPO cuts have triggered a ‘trickle-down effect’ where demand for services rises but the number of providers decreases. Providers now must be selective with their cases, choosing only those that justify the time and monetary effort involved. The continued failure to adequately remunerate practitioners persists as a significant hindrance, undermining the justice and morale of those involved.
Solicitors have stressed that access to justice is compromised, affecting their own morale as well. This has led many to step away from legal aid. Meanwhile, some clients are reportedly opting out of litigation, discouraged by the perceived inefficacy of established procedures to protect their rights.
Dr Onafuwa pointed out that while governments need to manage budgets, they must recognise that legal aid is crucial for a democratic society. The experience and commitment of service providers should be acknowledged. The professionals she consulted expressed concern over legal aid recipients’ increased vulnerability post-LASPO. They perceived that even if experienced practitioners could exit the sector, the primary worry remained with clients who might be left without essential legal support.
The current state of legal aid reflects systemic neglect that affects both providers and recipients. Without addressing these issues, legal aid may continue to diminish, threatening access to justice and democratic principles.
