I had a conversation recently with a worker at a legal 'not for profit' organisation (who wishes to remain anonymous) who is in despair about their Housing Court Desk Duty Scheme. She had been using student volunteers in addition to the qualified helpers. The student volunteers were all law students from a local college. They were really enthusiastic, worked hard, and the scheme was going well. However she has now been told that, for schemes funded by the LSC, all advisors must either be qualified solicitors or be doing 12 hours per week housing law case work. So she can’t use the students any more.
I assume that the LSC have made this stipulation so that they can assure 'quality'. However the effect of this is to make the scheme very difficult to run. Although they are generally willing to help, in the present financial climate local solicitors will need to spend most of their time on fee earning work, to enable their firm to stay solvent. They are not going to have a lot of free time available for voluntary work, bearing in mind that there are very few solicitors nowadays who specialise in this area of work anyway.
It is ridiculous to say that only solicitors and those carrying heavy housing law caseloads can give advice to people facing repossession. With proper training, anyone sensible who understand the legal system can do it. I would have thought that law students were eminently suitable for this work, plus it will enable them to gain experience which will help them in their careers, and may even encourage them to specialise in the area of housing and welfare work in the future.
It reminds me of when I used to do volunteer work for a local legal charity. I was donating my time entirely free of charge but the Legal Services Commission's expectations were wholly unreasonable. For example they demanded that I physically attend the office for a certain amount of time each week (which would take up more time that I was able to give, bearing in mind that I also needed to earn a living) whether this was actually needed or not. This is one of the main reasons why I resigned.
It seems that not only have the LSC virtually destroyed the network of legal aid solicitors that previously existed, they are also (still) making life difficult for volunteer services.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Incident: Sick Kids physician loses portable hard-drive with unencrypted personal health informationA physician from Sick Kids hospital who decided to travel with a portable hard-drive containing unencrypted health information on 3,300 pat...
-
According to an article in USA Today, Facebook is following in the footsteps of Google and others by using targeted ads. I'm not at all ...
-
On June 23, Australia's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services published a report titled Better sharehold...
-
INSOL Europe recently published a report titled Harmonisation of Insolvency Law at EU Law Level : see here ( pdf ). The report outlines di...
-
Apparently the American government is about to implement its latest version of the no-fly list, without data mining using commercial sources...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
Section 309 of the California Corporations Code provides that a director must act in good faith, in the manner in which he/she believes to...
-
The International Organization of Securities Commissions has published a revised edition of its Objectives and Principles of Securities Reg...
-
"Police tried to calm the teen, but Holyfield became combative, according to the statement. Officers fired the stun gun at him after he...
-
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (also known as the Dodd-Frank Act after Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank and not, as...
Comments
Post a comment on: More bonkers Legal Services Commission rules