Letter: Legal aid reform flawed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE Lord Chancellor's proposal to tackle the problems of legally aided medical negligence claims (Report, 5 March) by restricting such cases to specialist lawyers is misconceived.
It fails to deal with the inherently unfair costs rule whereby innocent health authorities are unable to recover their legal expenses; this promotes legal aid "blackmail" where cases are settled for commercial reasons regardless of their merits.
The Legal Aid Board relies on the opinion of the applicant's lawyer in deciding whether or not to fund the case. Such advice is not independent since the lawyer has a financial interest in advancing the claim; he is paid regardless of the outcome.
The conditional fee system has inbuilt incentives to avoid unnecessary litigation and to ensure that claims are properly assessed. Legal aid provides exactly the opposite incentives.
ANTHONY BARTON
London N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
0Comments