Dear Lord Chancellor: Legal aid is in the dock, eith the Maxwell brothers and others allegindly benefiting to the tune of millions. A leading radical lawyer counsels against over-hasty condemnation of the system

It's about this storm raging over the alleged generosity of the legal aid board to a motley group. Legal aid is being attacked for funding such as the sons of corrupt newspaper magnates who are themselves charged with fraud, former aides to Middle Eastern dictators, and City fraudsters with expensive lifestyles. This is, at least, a change from the repeated and serious criticism made by many, including senior judges, that in recent years legal aid has been administered in a miserly way.

Let's not forget that countless people, without adequate funds of their own, have found 'justice' because legal aid exists. It was created to ensure that the rich do not have an unfair advantage in litigation, and that there should be a level playing field in criminal and civil proceedings. When such equality of resources does not exist, the potential for miscarriages of justice has been proven over and over again in the Court of Appeal, and then emblazoned on the front pages. As soon as litigants or defendants are unable to prepare their cases properly, the likelihood is that a tragic mistake will be made.

There have been understandable protests that legal aid should not be providing millions to the 'so recently rich'. The public purse must not be abused, and only those who are genuinely without adequate funds should be able to call on its resources. To ensure that this happens, the staff who administer it should be given the time and facilities to enable them to make proper and informed decisions so that the right people are assisted. But just below the surface is not something rather dangerous happening? Along with the anxiety over the misuse of public funds, are not some very reactionary forces at work?

First, legal aid will be under far greater pressure to operate on the principles according to Scrooge. The public will be encouraged to fear it is some kind of gravy train for the undeserving rich who are pretending to be poor, and that it should thus be administered ever more parsimoniously. Treasury mandarins must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Second, should not all of us be seriously concerned over the insidious way in which the reporting has had a tendency to concentrate on 'foreigners'? By giving such prominence to 'well-to-do Nigerians' and 'Middle Eastern aides' who are engaged in civil cases, are we not succumbing to both racism and unfairness? We are gravely at risk of blowing away the principle of 'equality before the law' in favour of 'no representation if you are poor and foreign'.

With every cut in legal aid, more people who should be advised and represented are left to fend for themselves. The rich and powerful benefit, and justice and individuals suffer.

Let the storm subside and then get on with the serious business of ensuring that those who do not have adequate funds gain access to proper legal advice and representation.

(Photograph omitted)