As ever the LAPG get their retaliation in first:

The Governments announcement following consultation on Lord Carters reforms amounts to no more than a stay of execution for legal aid firms, according to LAPG Director Richard Miller. Vulnerable clients can have little confidence that they will be able to get the legal advice they need in the future.

 
Miller said, The changes that have been announced are welcome, and give vital extra time to try to bridge the gulf between the profession and the Government. In particular, we welcome the acknowledgement that the proposals for family law need substantial revision and further consultation. But the DCA has not given ground on some of the most serious flaws in the proposals.

 
There is no understanding of the problems of fixed fees in social welfare law cases. The swings and roundabouts firms are supposed to rely on do not exist. Fixed fees penalise firms doing more complex work, and doing work for client groups with particular needs and difficulties, just as much as they penalise inefficient firms, if such an animal still exists in the legal aid system. The result is that many of the most experienced and skilled lawyers undertaking this work will be lost to the system. Advice deserts will worsen, and many more clients will be unable to get the help they need.

 
There is no polluter pays mechanism. If solicitors have to work on fixed fees that are calculated on the assumption that the system runs smoothly, there has to be direct and immediate compensation when it does not. When the CPS has lost the file, when the prison delivery service turns up four hours late, when the police officer is not there for the bailback, in every single case the solicitor must be compensated for the additional costs caused. Otherwise the business model for undertaking this work is seriously undermined; and if the business case does not stack up, it is once again the clients who will suffer.

 
Most significantly of all, the Government is still insisting that there is no more money for legal aid, despite the additional burdens the Home Office in particular has put on the system in recent years. The Government is right to say that this country has one of the best-funded legal aid systems in the world. It is something that should make us all proud. But the Government is demanding about 3 billion of work for its 2 billion, and that just does not work. What limited scope there is for greater efficiency cannot come close to plugging this gap. This stone is out of blood. Practitioners are voting with their feet because they cannot make a viable business of providing this service on the financial terms the Government is offering.