The legal aid system was introduced under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 after the World War 2 which aim as explained by the government was “ To provide legal advice for those of slender means and resource, so that no one will be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or defend a legal right and allow solicitors and counsel to remunerated.” The Legal Services Commission runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales which was established from AJA 1999. Since the implementation of the Access to Justice Act 1999 which was designed to enable the implementation of a reformed scheme to meet the governments objective to promote and develop legal services that can be delivered within a controlled budget and targeted according to need, there was another 2 scheme was introduced , The Legal Services(for funding civil cases which are still allowed aid by the state) and the Criminal Defense Services(for criminal legal aid).
…show more content…
On the other hand, If the lawyer’s client has no assets then a conditional fee agreement merely gives legal form to what is a practical reality – the lawyer only gets paid if the client wins. Yet it is accepted as laudable for lawyers to act in such circumstances. There is nothing improper in the lawyer agreeing to act for the client for his normal fee whilst having it in his mind, for reasons of friendship or wishing to foster future work from that client, not to exact his fee if the client should lose. It seems odd that an open contractual statement of what is unobjectionably in a solicitors’ mind should render unenforceable an agreement which would have been enforceable had the solicitor not shared his thoughts with his client and promised not to change his …show more content…
Thereafter the client, before the conclusion of the litigation, becomes financially unable to promise to continue to pay his lawyer even if he loses. It is manifestly undesirable for the lawyer to leave the client in the lurch. A conditional normal fee agreement covering the remainder of the litigation, perhaps the last day of a trial which has run for longer than expected, has much to be said for it. The distinction between waiver at that point and waiver after the conclusion of the case is a nice one. I.e Leave to appeal against the Thai Trading case was refused by the House of Lords. Although in general the mere refusal of leave by the House lends no added authority to a decision of this court, had the Thai Trading case been perceived by their Lordships as permitting something which was illegal and against public policy then it is probably reasonable to suppose that leave would have been
On the other hand, If the lawyer’s client has no assets then a conditional fee agreement merely gives legal form to what is a practical reality – the lawyer only gets paid if the client wins. Yet it is accepted as laudable for lawyers to act in such circumstances. There is nothing improper in the lawyer agreeing to act for the client for his normal fee whilst having it in his mind, for reasons of friendship or wishing to foster future work from that client, not to exact his fee if the client should lose. It seems odd that an open contractual statement of what is unobjectionably in a solicitors’ mind should render unenforceable an agreement which would have been enforceable had the solicitor not shared his thoughts with his client and promised not to change his …show more content…
Thereafter the client, before the conclusion of the litigation, becomes financially unable to promise to continue to pay his lawyer even if he loses. It is manifestly undesirable for the lawyer to leave the client in the lurch. A conditional normal fee agreement covering the remainder of the litigation, perhaps the last day of a trial which has run for longer than expected, has much to be said for it. The distinction between waiver at that point and waiver after the conclusion of the case is a nice one. I.e Leave to appeal against the Thai Trading case was refused by the House of Lords. Although in general the mere refusal of leave by the House lends no added authority to a decision of this court, had the Thai Trading case been perceived by their Lordships as permitting something which was illegal and against public policy then it is probably reasonable to suppose that leave would have been