That is a dispiriting account. Naturally, I’m an enthusiast for private and law centre solicitors, but I’d have to say that I know of some very good local advice centres in my geographical area, with skilled and experienced staff. But their situation is becoming more and more perilous and the informal division of labour that worked through an ad hoc local referral scheme is becoming less effective. Such a referral scheme relied on advice centre staff experienced and knowledgeable enough to recognise where a problem potentially contained an issue that went beyond what they could provide, and passing it on to us. We could rely on being able to refer to competent people to take on less complex or non-litigation matters. Both sides of that equation are under threat.

This strikes me as plain daft. A functioning cross-referral scheme between competent, knowledgeable advice centres and specialist, skilled solicitors looks to me to be the best model to deliver the full range of ‘holistic’ provision that the LSC apparently seeks - but no. It is one size fits all for NfPs and private firms, each is supposed to offer the full range and do X many legal helps per certificate - which works against specialism.

Agreed that NfPs are under immense funding pressure and so training falls by the wayside. Private firms will shortly face similar pressures and an expand or die approach.

Also sorry to hear that the ‘don’t upset the LA’ approach is fairly widespread.

My manager, whilst having a broad understanding of the policy issues and implications for clients, was not a qualified solicitor. He had very limited experience of conducting litigation. This lack of training and experience, together with his concern with maintaining relationships with his counterparts at the LA seemed to colour his approach. More often than not he would approach an unlawful policy or practice with a “maybe if we talk to them, they’ll realise what they’re doing is unlawful and they might change” suggestion.

Its probably also worth mentioning that the manager had not worked for a local authority. He underestimated the extent to which many housing officers shall often only perform their legal duties if threatened with a claim by a practitioner with a willingness to litigate, and then sometimes only at the eleventh hour or once a claim has been issued.

Nearly Legal I agree with your analysis of the dangers of replacing assistance with advice. Housing law is complex. I know from personal experience that the vast majority of those with an arguable case shall need more than a mere pointing in the right direction to obtain redress. Many of those who seek advice under legal aid are simply not able to advance the arguments themselves, and even if they are, they’re likely to be fobbed off without the backing of a tenacious representative. Any large scale shift to telephone advice at the expense of traditional advocacy would be detrimental for many poorly housed and homeless persons.

But accessing an advisor in person does not always guarantee you get an adequate service. I would disagree with any suggestion that LA funding of NfPs is the primary reason for any lack of ‘bite’ by such agencies.

One of the things that most struck me when working as a paralegal was the wide disparity in experitise and litigation experience across different providers of social welfare advice, all of whom nevertheless had the LSC quality mark. Some advisers, whilst very knowledgeable, were not sufficiently trained or experienced to conduct legal challenges, even with the supervision of a solicitor.

I must admit that if I ever required publicly funded housing advice I would go to a private legal aid solicitor over a Not for Profit such as a CAB or Shelter every time. I’d also want to make sure I was seen by a qualified solicitor or at least a trainee with extensive litigation experience. I have no axe to grind against paralegals. I was one. Its just that I know from personal experience that some aren’t up to the job once its time to issue. And I don’t for one second think that the blame always lies with individual advisors. Many NfP’s are simply not geared to developing paralegals’ expertise. The charity I worked for did not see it as central to their role to assist caseworkers in obtaining legal qualifications, despite them having difficulty recruiting good housing solicitors.

I think this needs to be shouted from every roof top on behalf of every person who can’t afford to defend their legal rights. That sounds really sanctimonious I know but sod it.

The people that come to me for advice don’t know what pressures I face not to help them to the best of my ability. The people who go to these part LA funded CLAC’s and CLAN’s don’t know that they would often be better off at an actual independent advice provider. Why should they know? It’s hardly something that the media has much interest in. I can’t see the SUN running a front page on the lines of ’some independent advice providers aren’t so independent afterall’ or the Page 3 model giving her views on it. (Not that I ever read or er look at the Sun)!

Does this mean that those that have concerns are morally obliged to try and do something about it no matter how hopeless it seems or is that sactimonious to?

How can CLAC’s and CLAN’s doing CLS work ever be independent if they are receiving funding from Local Authorities. Politics plays a huge part of such funding and politics needs to stay a long long way away from independent legal advice provision in my humble opinion.

Sadly the lack of Independent Legal Aid is hardly numero uno on any Political Party’s manifesto so why should any MP care when the change in Legal Aid suits their purpose. Obviously respect for the rule of Law seems to go out the window when it suits MP’s.

As it’s 1.08am and I’ve been watching the poker I hope some of this comment makes some sense.