The cutbacks were drafted under the leadership of former Lord Chancellor Chis Grayling and have been hotly contested by members of the legal community ever since. If pursued, the reforms would have slashed the fees earned by legal aid lawyers by 17.5 per cent over two stages, while also culling the number of duty contracts on offer to firms for solicitors to cover magistrates’ courts and police stations from 1,600 to just 527. As a result, many firms would have been forced to merge or close. Now, the attempt to reduce the legal aid workforce has been dropped, while the second stage of the government's proposed fee reduction (set at 8.75 per cent) has been suspended for one year after coming into effect in July 2015.

'Real problems'

Since the procurement process for the new, smaller pool duty contracts first began, the MoJ's Legal Aid Agency has received legal challenges against the process from 99 separate firms. Lawyers protesting the plans have raised concerns that the cuts will reduce access to and the quality of legal representation for certain sections of the population in England and Wales. In particular, the inclusion of 'dual contracts', under which solicitors would take on duty legal aid work at police stations and magistrates courts whilst also representing their own clients, was slammed for its potential to reduce competition and create 'two-tier' access to justice. Announcing his decision to shelve the cuts, Mr Gove acknowledged the push-back that the proposals have received, conceding that 'real problems' had been uncovered with pressing ahead with the plans. The justice minister has backed up the about-face by stating that cost-cutting elsewhere in the MoJ had allowed for 'greater flexibility' in allocating the legal aid budget.

Decision welcomed

Bindmands partner Jamie Potter, whose firm has represented many of the law firms taking action against the cuts, has welcomed the justice minister's decision. Speaking of the public procurement process for the new contract scheme, Mr Potter commented: 'This was the most extensive public procurement process ever attempted. It was driven by an ideological conviction that mass market manipulation could be imposed at the same time as swingeing fee cuts. It's hardly surprising it led to litigation on an unprecedented scale.' Sources: BBC; The Guardian; Legal Business