The Review recommends the voice and interest of the user be
at the centre of the legal aid system. Do you agree?
This is the first declared objective of the paper. We agree that the professionals delivering
the legally aided service are presently the “users” of the system. The client provides
information to his solicitor who in turn passes that onto SLAB. The solicitor makes the
application, and deals with any requests from SLAB for further information, whether by
contacting the client again or otherwise. At present, it is likely that the client has little to no
contact with SLAB during the course of the case which is being funded.
We welcome the shifting of focus from the solicitor to the legally aided person. For the
legally aided person to be truly the user of the system, and for their voice to be at the heart
of the system, they should communicate directly with SLAB as that will allow maximum
opportunity for their voice to be heard.
Following on from this, we note the concern that the “user voice is being lost within the
current system”. At the moment, the client has ultimate control over the delivery of their
service in that the judicare model allows for the operation of a competitive market
economy. Clients decide who to instruct. In fact, many legal aid solicitors do not require to
advertise and clients often come from a recommendation. Competition is the best
assurance of quality. Whilst it may be difficult to assess, it should be borne in mind that
clients are the main assessor of quality under the present system.
It would be interesting to know what procedures there presently are in place for the “user
voice” to be ascertained given that the PDSO and the CLAO have been dealing directly with
clients for 20 years. It is our understanding that there is no formal structure.
We note the various proposals for ascertaining the needs of the user. As stated, the client is
presently the main assessor of quality. There is a danger that this voice may in fact be lost
the more administration is in place. The more contact the user has with SLAB directly can
only assist in their voice being at the heart of the system
Desirability of enhanced approached to quality assurance 4.
Indirect engagement through consumer panels – 2
Collaborative engagement 1
Partnership working and Community Planning Partnerships
(CPPs) help provide local context to user needs. Would you
support placing duties on a prescribed list of public sector
organisations, to work together in order to help CPPs achieve
their goals?
No - Direct engagement with the user is the best way to provide local context to user needs.
​
The Scottish Government supports the recommendation in the
Review that provision by publicly-funded private solicitors
should continue. Do you consider that there are ways in which
the mixed model can be strengthened? No
We note the tenor of this part of the report is that the present judicare system is failing to
deliver consistent services nationwide. The assertion is that there are gaps either in areas of
law, or areas of the country. We do not agree that this is due to an “inherent lack of
flexibility in the current model”. The competitive free market economy is an extremely
flexible system, with supply appearing to meet demand. The market is not operating
properly due to a lack of funding, so that supply cannot meet demand due to financial
constraints.
The post Cadder changes in police interviews provide a case in point. Following the decision,
Advice and Assistance was made available to cover police station attendances and
telephone advice. A police station duty plan was drawn up. The system adapted and
worked. It failed due to a lack of proper remuneration.
As another example of this, very few firms now offer financial provision upon divorce legal
aid. This is directly as a result of the high risk/ low pay involved in such cases. This is not a
gap in the area of law as firms offer such advice and assistance for private paying clients
We note it is stated that the issue of legal aid fees and payment framework will not form
part of this consultation, albeit the paper opens with a statement on the per capita
spending on legal aid. We do not accept the suggestion that the system itself if solely
responsible for issues with supply of services.
We do not recognise the problem of oversupply. The market demand determines the level
of supply. Then suggestion is that there is over supply in areas of large population. We do
not accept that. If over supply is an issue there, why do the PDSO operate there? Over
supply, if it exists at all, does not require an overhaul of the system to correct.
We also draw attention to the fact that there does not appear to be any policy as to where
the PDSO operates and in which areas of law. This would appear to be a tool available to
address issues of provision of services. We note that it is not suggested here, for reasons
that are not clear.
Are there specific areas of law, eg domestic violence or
disability issues, that the current judicare funding
arrangements are serving less well? Yes
All areas of law. The issue is with funding rather than the current judicare arrangements.
Are there specific areas of law that might benefit from a more
targeted approach to funding solicitor services? No
The competitive free market economy is an extremely flexible system, with supply
appearing to meet demand. The market is not operating properly due to a lack of funding,
so that supply cannot meet demand due to financial constraints.
Are there certain groups that when accessing legal aid might
benefit from a more targeted approach to funding solicitor
services? No
Do you support building additional flexibility into the delivery
of legal aid? No
The competitive free market economy is an extremely flexible system, with supply
appearing to meet demand. The market is not operating properly due to a lack of funding,
so that supply cannot meet demand due to financial constraints.
​
Legal aid as a public service
As presently structured do you consider legal aid a public service – Yes
Changes that would make it operate like a public service – unsure
Potential risks Yes
Are there actions that could be taken by the Scottish
Government to help maintain or strengthen the current scope
of legal aid? – Unsure
We agree the current scope of legal aid be maintained. It is difficult to comment on
the proposal that SLAB be given additional powers without knowing what specifically
is proposed particularly with regards to oversight. The issue of responsiveness has
been dealt with.
Are there any other aspects of the current scope of legal aid
that you think should be reformed? – No
Are there actions that should be taken by the Scottish
Government to help support and strengthen the work of
SLAB? Yes
An area of grave concern is the surprising proposal that decisions on policy be “devolved” from the
Cabinet Secretary to SLAB. Whilst it is clear from the paper that major changes are intended, it is far
from clear what the new system would be. As we read the paper, power could be passed to SLAB,
and only after that will significant decisions be made. Given that the reforms are to change to future
of legal aid practice for a generation, it would be remarkable if it were not subject to close
ministerial scrutiny.
As currently structured and delivered, do you consider legal
aid a public service? Yes
The nomenclature of what we do is not important. The purpose behind the statements in this
section seem to place greater onus on the “planning or designing of services” rather than their
effective delivery. As stated above, a properly operating market would respond quickly and
instinctively to fill any gaps in the market for provision of services. Shifting the onus onto planning
and design would move resources from delivery.
Are there changes that you consider would make legal aid
function more as a public service? Unsure
The reference to the governance structures is difficult to comment upon as there is no indication as
to how these are said to be deficient at the moment and there is no indication as to what is
proposed to meet them. As stated elsewhere, solicitors are subject to a number of different
governance structures. There is a danger new ones with add to or compete with others, or hinder
solicitors ability represent clients effectively.
Are there potential risks to looking at the delivery of legal aid
as a public service? Yes
The reference to the governance structures is difficult to comment upon as there is no
indication as to how these are said to be deficient at the moment and there is no indication
as to what is proposed to meet them. As stated elsewhere, solicitors are subject to a
number of different governance structures. There is a danger new ones with add to or
compete with others, or hinder solicitors ability represent clients effectively.
The stated objective of engaging Best Value considerations indicate that cost will be a
significant factor. The reference to driving continuous improvement would appear to
suggest replacing the improvements made necessary by the free competition model with
pre-determined criteria which are at risk of being artificial and risk diluting the user voice.
​
A more structured relationship between SLAB and legal aid
providers could be facilitated by way of a formalised
agreement. Do you support a Memorandum of Understanding
between solicitor firms and the Scottish Legal Aid Board being
a prerequisite for doing legal aided work? No
The recommendation that legal aid providers enter into a Memoranda of Understanding with SLAB
causes concern.
Within the existing system, each firm and each individual solicitor require to be registered with SLAB
to provide legal aid. Further obligations ensue on the granting of legal aid in each individual case.
There are there for existing obligations. We would submit that an “understanding” has less force and
is of less significance.
It is of great concern that this Memoranda of Understanding may be used by SLAB to compel firms to
take on certain work. This compulsion is designed to fix a perceived gap in the market. A gap exists
because certain work is presently financially unsustainable. The gap is filled by SLAB compelling it to
be done on threat of other work being denied to a provider. This approach is fails to recognise the
cause of the gap in the first place and is itself unsustainable. It also raises questions about the stated
objective of these reforms.
Such a Memoranda could also be used to implement policies which SLAB have previously proposed
but have been unable to implement such as collection of contributions by solicitors
The proposal of exclusive funding agreements is an extension of the Memoranda and an extension
of the concerns. The restriction on judicare is a restriction on client choice and therefor user voice.
The comment on the low uptake of mediation, and the implication that this could be improved by a
changed model of funding, appears to be a very clear indication that the executive will seek to
interfere with the advice given and therefor solicitors’ ability to do their job. Whilst it may be
presented as, not an attempt to regulate advice given, but to regulate the quality of the advice
given, the effect is the same. This is particularly concerning, given the additional powers regarding
quality assurance that are sought.
Whilst it is stated that the Memoranda could indicate what should be expected in return, i.e. SLAB’s
part of the bargain, there is no indication as to what they might be. Given the willingness to position
the work as a Public Service, we would expect training and physical and mental welfare to be at the
heart of this.
What should be contained in a Memorandum of Understanding
to strengthen consistency of service and user centred design?
Given the willingness to position the work as a Public Service, we would expect training and physical
and mental welfare to be at the heart of this.
What risks might a Memorandum of Understanding system
have in relation to the legal sector’s ability to respond to
emerging legal need, if any?
It is of great concern that this Memoranda of Understanding may be used by SLAB to compel firms to
take on certain work. This compulsion is designed to fix a perceived gap in the market. A gap exists
because certain work is presently financially unsustainable. The gap is filled by SLAB compelling it to
be done on threat of other work being denied to a provider. This approach is fails to recognise the
cause of the gap in the first place and is itself unsustainable. It also raises questions about the stated
objective of these reforms.
Such a Memoranda could also be used to implement policies which SLAB have previously proposed
but have been unable to implement such as collection of contributions by solicitors
The proposal of exclusive funding agreements is an extension of the Memoranda and an extension
of the concerns. The restriction on judicare is a restriction on client choice and therefor user voice.
The comment on the low uptake of mediation, and the implication that this could be improved by a
changed model of funding, appears to be a very clear indication that the executive will seek to
interfere with the advice given and therefor solicitors’ ability to do their job. Whilst it may be
presented as, not an attempt to regulate advice given, but to regulate the quality of the advice
given, the effect is the same. This is particularly concerning, given the additional powers regarding
quality assurance that are sought.
​
In principle, do you support a change whereby SLAB would
have a standardised range of intervention powers, in statute,
across all legal aid types? No
SLAB has been at the heart of Legal Aid policy since 1986 and have been instrumental in, and largely
responsible for, the present situation which is now said to be fundamentally flawed. The notion of
“SLAB having the ability to make use of targeted interventions once the outcome of this process was
known, without the need to obtain the agreement of either national or local government” is
undemocratic and would represent an appalling dereliction of Ministerial duty.
Should lay advisers be able to access funding through legal
aid to provide advice? Unsure
Such a general statement is difficult to respond to without context. Other than the
reference to telephone services, we cannot see what is suggested here.
What are your views on solicitors providing publicly funded
legal assistance being located within third sector
organisations that have service users with civil legal issues e.g
domestic violence, minority groups or disabled groups?
This would benefit from clarification. Would legal aid only be made available through these
embedded solicitors? Would these solicitors be in private practice or public servants
employed directly by the government? Or by the third sector organisations directly? Would
the client have a choice who to instruct? Or is it simply suggested having a solicitor located
in the same office? If so, could that solicitor do other work out with the third sector
organisation? Could they do no legal aid work?
SLAB could directly employ lay advisers for tasks such as
assisting with information and advice provision to aid early
resolution, signposting people to information or services, or
referring them to services that will meet their needs. Would
you support SLAB being allowed to directly employ lay
advisers for such purposes? No
SLAB would directly employ lay advisors but not legal advisors. This would seem to create a
conflict of interest in having the case dealt with without the need for legal advice. Such a
conflict at the very beginning of the legal aid system should be avoided.
Do you think there would be benefits to having a telephone
triage service that provided basic advice and referral
assistance? No
Following of from the last answer, there would be a risk that this would be lay advisors
providing legal advice. We note the suggestion that basic advice to be offered and the
implication that only after this basic advice given could the case be referred presumably to a
legal advisor.
If such a telephone triage service were implemented, what
criteria should be used to identify the most appropriate
organisation to deliver this service?
At the moment, the client has ultimate control and choice over who is instructed. This will
be done on the basis of a number of factors, mostly a personal recommendation from
someone who has used a solicitor, or knowing someone who has, along with other
identifiable criteria such as checks on quality assurance and legal awards etc.
Direction by a telephone triage system can only restrict that choice and control, and there
for the user's voice. Whatever criteria is chosen if a client is given a list of firms, the way
they are given the list will inevitably influence their decision. The only example of this at the
moment is the duty scheme where the client is given a choice of one. Any direction will lead
to problems.
The Review supported a “channel-shift” in signposting,
referrals, advice and information from face-to face and
telephone to on-line, while ensuring that face-to-face remains
for vulnerable groups or those who struggle to access digital
technology. Do you agree that such a channel shift should be
promoted? Yes
It is important that face to face meeting remain available to those who need it whether this
be those who cannot access digital technology for whatever reason whether that be
attending at a solicitors office or having a solicitor attend with them, in prison for example.
There is more that can be done to access digital technology, using forms that do not require
a client's signature as part of a high trust system and this should also be improved.
Planned intervention could mean exclusive funding using
grants for specific advice or geographical areas. Should grants
and/or contracts facilitate exclusive funding arrangements to
target a specific identified need? No
The assertion is that there are gaps either in areas of law, or areas of the country. We do not agree
that this is due to an “inherent lack of flexibility in the current model”. The competitive free market
economy is an extremely flexible system, with supply appearing to meet demand. The market is not
operating properly due to a lack of funding, so that supply cannot meet demand due to financial
constraints.
The post Cadder changes in police interviews provide a case in point. Following the decision, Advice
and Assistance was made available to cover police station attendances and telephone advice. A
police station duty plan was drawn up. The system adapted and worked. It failed due to a lack of
proper remuneration.
As another example of this, very few firms now offer financial provision upon divorce legal aid. This
is directly as a result of the high risk/ low pay involved in such cases. This is not a gap in the area of
law as firms offer such advice and assistance for private paying clients
We note it is stated that the issue of legal aid fees and payment framework will not form part of this
consultation, albeit the paper opens with a statement on the per capita spending on legal aid. We do
not accept the suggestion that the system itself if solely responsible for issues with supply of
services.
We do not recognise the problem of oversupply. The market demand determines the level of supply.
Then suggestion is that there is over supply in areas of large population. We do not accept that. If
over supply is an issue there, why do the PDSO operate there? Over supply, if it exists at all, does not
require an overhaul of the system to correct.
We also draw attention to the fact that there does not appear to be any policy as to where the PDSO
operates and in which areas of law. This would appear to be a tool available to address issues of
provision of services. We note that it is not suggested here, for reasons that are not clear.
Should grants and/or contracts be able to cover all aid types?
No
The proposal of exclusive funding agreements is an extension of the Memoranda and an extension
of the concerns. The restriction on judicare is a restriction on client choice and therefor user voice.
The comment on the low uptake of mediation, and the implication that this could be improved by a
changed model of funding, appears to be a very clear indication that the executive will seek to
interfere with the advice given and therefor solicitors’ ability to do their job. Whilst it may be
presented as, not an attempt to regulate advice given, but to regulate the quality of the advice
given, the effect is the same. This is particularly concerning, given the additional powers regarding
quality assurance that are sought.
Do you agree that the judicare system should be simplified?
Yes
We agree that the present system is too complicated and welcome all efforts to simplify.
This will be of particular importance where the client is the user and has more direct contact
with SLAB in the application process.
Should SLAB have more flexibility in operating the system?
Unsure
For the reasons expressed elsewhere In this reply, the devolution of power to SLAB
raises concerns especially if it proposed they have more flexibility in the operation of
that system. Flexibility can mean inconsistency of approach and make business
planning difficult.
Flexibility and fairness can trade off against one another. With this in
mind:
In which areas do you think it is most important to maintain
consistency?
Everywhere. One of the main issues faced by the profession is the constant change in the
justice system and legal aid is included in this. Whether this is fixed fees, the PDSO,
directions of clients, changes in duty schemes, work items being subsumed into the fixed
fee,changes in ABWOR, increased financial eligibility checks, an increase in the
documentation required to secure a grant of legal aid, increased difficulties in submitting
accounts and abatements, they all create issues in business planning and make recruitment
and retention of staff increasingly difficult.
In which areas do you think it is most important to allow more flexibility?
A competitive operational free market is the most flexible system. It is not operating
properly due to a lack of funding.
Do you support a single eligibility assessment at the earliest
point in the application process? Yes
A single aid type with one financial eligibility test is welcomed. Simplification of eligibility
calculations and financial verification is also welcomed. We would highlight the present
issues with the latter. It is often the case that issues are raised by SLAB regarding the issue
of financial verification, not at the time of the application, but at the time of submission of
the account once the work has been carried out.
Are there situations when the continuation of more complex
financial calculations would be required? Yes
Whilst allowances for outlays would be useful in the majority of cases, it clearly cannot fit all
applications. Examples include where capital has been frozen as part of separate
proceedings, or where the applicant has child care costs above the norm. To expect a client
to pay for legal representation in those cases may result in the financial cost being
transferred to others. Clearly, such cases should be considered on their own merits.
Should there be more strictly defined financial thresholds for
eligibility? No
Clearer allowances will assist.
​
Would you support the availability of funding to those with a
common interest in legal proceedings, such as Fatal Accident
Inquiries? Unsure
The EBA has no experience of FAIs
Do you agree that those who can afford to do so should pay a
contribution? Yes
If a system of legal aid includes financial eligibility test, then there will obviously an
assessment of disposable income and capital. We have two systems at the moment. Legal
aid where someone is eligible or they are not, and ABWOR where a contribution is due. It is
anomalous that one system considers outlays and the other does not.
Regard should be had to the financial eligibility threshold. Someone working a 40 hour week
on the minimum wage earning £312 per week will presently be expected to pay a
contribution in certain cases.
Clearly there have been issues with contributions in the past and those remain unresolved.
Would you support the implementation of contributions in
criminal legal assistance for those who can afford to pay? No
There are an increasing number of cases in which accused people are not permitted to
represent themselves. The matter of an outstanding contribution may make it difficult for a
solicitor to progress a case, or indeed oblige him to withdraw from acting. This will have an
effect on the overall progress of a case, the citation of witnesses, the cost of court time and
on witnesses themselves. The additional costs to the justice system will be significant.
Given that this consultation is specifically not about funding, the issues of contributions is
better addressed elsewhere.
The existing contributions regime is complex but highly
personalised. Would you support a simplified, more
transparent and more accessible contributions system, even if
this might risk some of benefits of this personalisation? No
Whilst allowances for outlays would be useful in the majority of cases, it clearly cannot fit all
applications. Examples include where capital has been frozen as part of separate
proceedings, or where the applicant has child care costs above the norm. To expect a client
to pay for legal representation in those cases may result in the financial cost being
transferred to others. Clearly, such cases should be considered on their own merits.
​
There are inconsistencies in the operation of clawback. Would
you support addressing this by removing discretion to create a
more transparent system, even if this might risk some benefits
of the flexibility this discretion allows? Unsure
Legal aid clawback is fine in principle but the effects of the system have meant that many
solicitors no longer offer work which would be subject to clawback. The reason behind this
is that, if one is required to withdraw from acting in such a case and there is a possibility of
financial recovery, it is unlikely that a solicitor will ever get paid. Advice and assistance civil
legal aid does not allow for the recovery of funds for either outlays or interim payments.
This means that a file can sit for months without the solicitor either being reimbursed for
outlays or being paid any fees.
Would you a support that there be a test on whether clawback
should apply? Unsure
See above.
Do you consider the merits tests appropriate and transparent?
Yes
The merits test is applied differently in respect of the existing aid types. In respect of
summary applications, it is clear and has been consistent for over 20 years perhaps
to the point of being redundant.
Merits tests could be applied at defined stages during the
lifetime of a grant of legal aid. For example before an
appearance is made in civil court proceedings, or on receipt of
summary complaint and any following appeal. In principle, do
you support the application of a merits test at defined stages
during the lifetime of a grant of legal aid? No
This would complicate the procedure rather than simplify it. It could only result in a
delay in the granting of legal aid and there for impeded progress of a case.
We are aware that in other jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands,
applications are submitted under a high trust model and
automatically granted, subject only to financial eligibility checks.
What are your views on the current balance between a solicitor’s
ability to grant advice and assistance and the need to seek prior
approval from SLAB for funding in other aid types?
Do you think this balance should be shifted, and if so in what
direction?
A new system would require to recognise that work often requires to be carried out
on the same day as the application is made and the system of checks will require to
accommodate this. The proposal of a “High trust” system would appear attractive to
achieve this. The trust being placed in the user who is at the heart of the system.
Shifting the onus of the system from the legal aid providers to the user will require a
system that the user can easily understand. Where a system is difficult to
understand, or inconsistent, the user’s decision as to how to progress his case may
be affected by their belief as to their entitlement to legal aid. Such a situation should
be avoided.
Seeking prior approval from SLAB is also often unnecessary given that all accounts
are submitted, checked and often abated.
In general, what controls do you think should be put in place to
protect the Legal Aid Fund from inappropriate use?
At present, each solicitor requires to be registered to provide legal aid. They are
subject to audits by SLAB and Peer review by SLAB. Each file can be requested by
SLAB for any reason at any time. ABWOR checks are regularly made and where
appropriate specific grant deemed inappropriate and money returned to SLAB. In
certain cases permission is sought for work to be done. Each time and line account
is submitted with each entry shown and vouching produced where requested.
It is proposed each solicitor enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with SLAB.
There are adequate protections in place.
Would you support the introduction of any merits test on what
is currently the advice and assistance scheme?
No. With regard to ABWOR, particularly eligibility for ABWOR, the rules are complex and
opaque. They need simplification, not an additional test. Often, work requires to be carried
out on the same day the application is signed. To have an after the fact merits test, meaning
that ABWOR may be refused and a solicitor requires to charge the client a fee, would cause
enormous problems.
SLAB could have statutory powers to operate more
strategically. Do you support there being statutory processes
that allow SLAB to facilitate legal aid delivery in a more flexible
and permissive way? No
Devolution of power from the Scottish Government to SLAB is as ridiculous as it is insulting.
SLAB has been at the heart of Legal Aid policy since 1986 and has been instrumental in, and
largely responsible for, the present situation which is now said to be fundamentally flawed.
The notion of “SLAB having the ability to make use of targeted interventions once the
outcome of this process was known, without the need to obtain the agreement of either
national or local government” is undemocratic and would represent an appalling dereliction
of Ministerial duty.
There should be no mistake that the powers and proposals contained within this document
would represent the most significant to change to the Legal Aid system in a generation.
Indeed, it is clearly intended to be such. The effect on the Justice System as a whole will be
considerable and permanent. For the Scottish Government to pass all power and
responsibility not only for the administration of the system but also for the policy that drives
it, is a Ministerial washing of the hands of the Justice system. If the Cabinet Secretary for
Justice does not have responsibility for this, what do they have responsibility for? Is the
Scottish Government proposing the same devolution of powers from the Cabinet Secretary
for Education and Skills? Or Finance? Why then do it for Justice?
It should be remembered that the notion of Exclusive Funding Agreements was proposed by
SLAB a number of years ago. We do not view it as a coincidence that SLAB have now
identified a problem that answer to which is something they already indicted they wanted
to do.
The concerns stated above when dealing with the Memorandum of Understanding are
reiterated here as are the concerns about the lack of accountability of SLAB should power
be devolved.
Should the Scottish Government pass power to SLAB, it will be in the knowledge that that is
their intention and the consequences should come as no surprise in years to come.
Without Ministerial responsibility for the direction and administration of policy it will go
unchecked with the only recourse will be expensive and lengthy. Once power has been
devolved, any attempt to restore it to the democratically elected politicians will be resisted
by those who hold it.
What checks or controls would you consider necessary if
SLAB had statutory powers to operate more strategically?
Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Do you consider changes to the composition and structure of
SLAB’s Board necessary to help support a more strategic
role? Unsure
We do not know enough about the composition and structure of SLAB to comment.
​
Do you support that SLAB should register and quality assure
all those providing services paid by the Legal Aid Fund? Yes
We note the proposal for a unified approach to quality assurance. For this approach to be
truly unified, and if the definition is of a public service, this should be a wholesale review.
Solicitors are presently subject to quality assurance by a number of different organisations.
We would wish to avoid a situation where obligations are competing against each other. We
would not wish to be subject to more or less supervision than other parts of Public Service.
Do you agree with the Review recommendation that all quality
assurance reviews and reports on both lawyers and third
sector advice services be published? Yes
There are a number of approaches that could achieve greater
surety and control over outlays. How desirable on a scale of 1
– 5 (1 being very undesirable and 5 being very desirable) do
you find the idea of the statutory framework to give SLAB
powers to:
1. fix a preferred supplier list and to set rates for commonly used experts.
2. deal directly with the experts to arrange payment.
3. make payment on the basis of a fixed tables of fees for experts, which must be agreed to
when accepting instructions relating to a legal aid client.
All 5
This would simplify things
Are there types of expert reports and other reports which
could be subject to more control than others? Yes
Exceptional and difficult cases will require to be dealt with appropriately within the
system
​