America is a nation founded on justice and the rule of law. But our laws are too complex, and legal advice too expensive, for poor and even middle-class Americans to get help and vindicate their rights. Criminal defendants facing jail time may receive an appointed lawyer who is juggling hundreds of cases and immediately urges them to plead guilty. Civil litigants are even worse off; usually, they get no help at all navigating the maze of technical procedures and rules. The same is true of those seeking legal advice, like planning a will or negotiating an employment contract. Rebooting Justice presents a novel response to longstanding problems. The answer is to use technology and procedural innovation to simplify and change the process itself. In the civil and criminal courts where ordinary Americans appear the most, we should streamline complex procedures and assume that parties will not have a lawyer, rather than the other way around. We need a cheaper, simpler, faster justice system to control costs. We cannot untie the Gordian knot by adding more strands of rope; we need to cut it, to simplify it.
The provision of legal technical assistance has in recent years become a major concern for international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, and for Western-based bilateral donor agencies. This book offers critical perspectives for the evaluation of legal technical assistance projects and contains proposals for action and research. Five chapters offer general perspectives on law, state and civil society and the remaining six case studies on themes such as economic regulation, agrarian reform, representation of women and access to justice.
This book considers how access to justice is affected by restrictions to legal aid budgets and increasingly prescriptive service guidelines. As common law jurisdictions, England and Wales and Australia, share similar ideals, policies and practices, but they differ in aspects of their legal and political culture, in the nature of the communities they serve and in their approaches to providing access to justice. These jurisdictions thus provide us with different perspectives on what constitutes justice and how we might seek to overcome the burgeoning crisis in unmet legal need. The book fills an important gap in existing scholarship as the first to bring together new empirical and theoretical knowledge examining different responses to legal aid crises both in the domestic and comparative contexts, across criminal, civil and family law. It achieves this by examining the broader social, political, legal, health and welfare impacts of legal aid cuts and prescriptive service guidelines. Across both jurisdictions, this work suggests that it is the most vulnerable groups who lose out in the way the law now operates in the twenty-first century. This book is essential reading for academics, students, practitioners and policymakers interested in criminal and civil justice, access to justice, the provision of legal assistance and legal aid.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
According to the report The Implications For Access To Justice Of The Government's Proposals To Reform Judicial Review HC (868), the number of judicial reviews has remained remarkably steady when the increase in the number of immigration judicial reviews (now handled by the Upper Tribunal) is disregarded. The report covers: procedural defects and substantive outcomes; legal aid for judicial review cases; interveners and costs; capping of costs (protective costs orders); alternatives to the Government's judicial review reforms; judicial review and the public sector equality duty.
This report calls on the Government to establish a more efficient way to administer the statutory child maintenance service, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. It highlights that in 2009-10 it cost £572 million to administer its collection service but that only £1,141 million in maintenance payments reached children; a cost of 50 pence for every £1 collected. The report examines the Government's proposed reforms of the child maintenance system, as set out in the Green Paper 'Strengthening families, promoting parental responsibility' (Cm. 7990. ISBN 9780101799027). The report's recommendations include: non-resident parents should be required to pay child maintenance through direct deductions from their salaries or bank accounts, ensuring that parents with care receive agreed child maintenance payments on time and at the correct level; where a parent with care has taken all reasonable steps to reach a voluntary agreement, both the proposed application and collection charge for the service should be borne by the non-resident parent; the proposals for collection charges are excessive and unnecessarily complex and should be replaced by a single, modest administrative charge; the Government must ensure that its proposed network of improved advice and support services is operating effectively in all areas before charges for the statutory system are introduced; the proposed gateway process is a positive development, as mediation and collaboration could resolve problems for separating parents at the earliest stage; the operational weaknesses of the Child Support Agency, including ongoing IT problems and a reported £3.8 billion in uncollected payments must be addressed.
Since the reforms came into effect, there has been a significant underspend in the civil legal aid budget because the MoJ failed to ensure that those who are eligible for legal aid are able to access it. This has been partly been due to a lack of public information, including information about the Civil Legal Advice telephone gateway for debt advice, and the Committee recommends that the MoJ take prompt steps to redress this. The Committee also concludes that the exceptional cases funding scheme has not worked as Parliament intended. It was supposed to act as a safety net, protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable. The Committee expects the MoJ to react rapidly to ensure that the scheme fulfils Parliament's intention that the most vulnerable people are able to access legal assistance. The Government's reforms have led to an increase in the number and a change in the profile of litigants in person: increasingly these are people who have no choice but to represent themselves, and who may thus have difficulty in doing so effectively: although many tribunals are accustomed to dealing with unrepresented litigants the courts have to expend more resources in order to assist them. The MoJ has not been able to demonstrate that it has achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Although significant savings have been achieved, efforts to target legal aid at those who most need it have focused on intervention aimed at the point after a crisis has already developed, rather than on prevention.
This is the Government response to Cm. 7967 'Proposals for reform of legal aid in England and Wales (ISBN 9780101796729) and sets out the plans to deliver the goals stated in that paper. The legal aid programme put forward includes: reform of the classes of cases and proceedings retained within the scope of legal aid; exceptional funding; amendment of merits test criteria for civil legal aid; establishment of the Community Legal Advice Telephone helpline; financial eligibility reforms; criminal remuneration; civil and family remuneration; expert fees and alternative sources of funding