Evidence submitted by Young Legal Aid
Lawyers (LAR 115)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This is the written evidence of Young
Legal Aid Lawyers ("YLAL") to the Joint Committee on
the implementation of the Carter Review.
1.2 YLAL are a group of lawyers committed
to practising in areas of law that have traditionally been publicly
funded. The group includes students and trainees, as well as recently
qualified barristers and solicitors. YLAL members share a strong
belief in good quality representation and advice to those who
could not otherwise afford it. Without access to justice, there
can be no justice at all. Without new generations of committed
legal aid lawyers, there is no future for legal aid. This crucial
aspect of the sustainability of legal aid has not been addressed
by Lord Carter in his review, and for that reason the focus of
these submissions will be our views on the impact of the proposals
on the justice system broadly and, specifically, the impact that
the reforms will have on new entrants to the profession. We have
conducted a survey of our members in order to ensure that these
submissions are evidenced based.
1.3 YLAL are conscious that there are many
aspects of the proposals that warrant detailed attention and we
will refer to some of these details in support of our arguments.
However, we have had sight of the evidence of the Legal Aid Practitioners
Group ("LAPG") and fully endorse their views and therefore
will not repeat their detailed arguments.
2. THE STRUCTURE
OF THESE
SUBMISSIONS, OUR
SURVEY AND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Structure
These submissions will explain the motives for
young legal aid lawyers in committing to a career in legal aid
and highlight our key concerns about the impact of the proposals
on the justice system. We will set out why we believe that these
proposals will reduce the incentive for young lawyers to undertake
legal aid work and why particular groups of young lawyers will
be especially disadvantaged under the new scheme. We will detail
how some young lawyers will simply be prevented from undertaking
legal aid work at all and how junior members of the profession
that continue to undertake legal aid work will be particularly
disadvantaged under the new scheme.
2.2 The Survey
In order to evidence these submissions we undertook
a survey of all our members. The data analysed is from the first
100 responses to the survey and a summary of our findings is produced
at Appendix 1.
2.3 Executive Summary
These submissions will show that there is widespread
concern about Lord Carter's proposals amongst young legal aid
lawyers, both in terms of the impact on the justice system and
the sustainability of the profession. We are concerned that the
proposals will reduce access to justice, affect the quality of
advice and representation we will be able to deliver and restrict
choice available to clients. We believe that this will have serious
implications for the justice system as a whole and will deter
young lawyers whose key motive for entering legal aid work is
a desire to work towards a more just society. The financial structure
of the new regime will have a serious effect on the training and
pay of young lawyers, making it even harder for young lawyers
to qualify and leading to a skills desert in the near future.
Those lawyers that do manage to qualify within the new regime
will be placed under undue pressure to provide a level of service
below that required in the interests of justice, in order to maximise
profits for their firms.
3. THE MOTIVATIONS
OF YOUNG
LEGAL AID
LAWYERS WHO
COMMIT TO
A CAREER
IN LEGAL
AID
3.1 The overall motivation of young legal
aid lawyers entering the profession is a belief in social justice.
Financial gain is no longer a reason to enter this area of work.
In our survey only 1% of respondents listed financial reward as
a motivation for doing legal aid. The overwhelming majority (76%)
of respondents listed working towards a more just society as a
chief motivation for doing legal aid work. For intelligent young
people the rates of pay in the city are incomparable: if it was
money we were after we would not be in legal aid. Young legal
aid lawyers aim to provide a public service to some of the least
privileged and socially excluded members of society. It is a fascinating
and rewarding area of work but that alone will not be enough to
sustain the recruitment and retention of young lawyers in future.
Other reasons given by our members for working in legal aid are
to represent the vulnerable, to help regular people with regular
problems, a strong sense of justice, helping people who are less
able to help themselves, desire to have a direct and positive
impact on people's lives and client contact.
3.2 Young legal aid lawyers are primarily
concerned with preserving a good quality justice system. We stress
that we are not resistant to change, nor do we object to the existence
of larger firms. We value efficiency provided that it does not
compromise quality.
4. KEY CONCERNS
ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF
THE PROPOSALS
ON THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM
4.1 YLAL are concerned by a number of themes
that run through the Carter review. Many of these concerns have
been addressed in detail in our responses to the Fairer Deal,
the Preferred Supplier Scheme, Price Competitive Tendering, the
CLS Strategy consultation and our submissions on the Legal Services
Bill (see Annexes 4-8). In order to avoid repetition, we have
chosen to briefly address some of our key concerns about Lord
Carter's review here.
4.2 Fixed fees
YLAL believe that the notion of fixed fees is
inherently flawed. 100% of respondents in our survey felt that
fixed fees would not promote a better quality of justice and 86%
felt that they would not promote efficiency. As the proposals
stand, the suggested rates of pay are punitively low. This is
likely to result in firms being forced to cherry pick simple cases
or provide a reduced quality of services. If, as the principle
behind fixed fees suggests, there are firms who are spending more
time on cases than is genuinely required, surely it is equally
arguable that these will be replaced by firms who will now not
risk taking on cases that are too complex, cherry pick cases that
will be very straightforward or develop strategies such as case
splitting to artificially create short cases. One survey respondent
felt that "people will focus on easy areas of law to earn
enough to survive". 93% of our survey respondents felt that
the introduction of fixed fees would place them under pressure
to provide a quality of service below the standard that the interests
of justice require. Further, 92% of respondents to our survey
felt the escape threshold of four times the work is far too high.
Lord Carter persistently claims that one size does not fit all;
but his proposals appear to provide very limited room for individualised
consideration of cases. The principle of fixed fees across the
board, calculated on the basis of seriously questionable data,
is likely to have a devastating impact on the quality of legal
services that all clients receive and is likely to penalise the
most vulnerable clients most. One respondent to our survey summarised
the likely position well: "The foremost consideration for
every lawyer will be when does the money run out as opposed to
what is in the best interests of the client".
4.3 Irreversible loss of good quality providers
Lord Carter estimates that his reforms will
result in the loss of approximately 400 firms. However, research
conducted by the Law Society puts the loss at 800 firms. This
may result in the loss of good quality legal providers—a
loss which seems an absurd outcome for an initiative that claims
to ensure "clients have access to good quality legal advice
and representation" and a "sustainable" supplier
base. The need to continuously bid for work will lead to constant
uncertainty, as well as the need to continuously maximise profits.
4.4 Broader implications
At the same time, the spending restrictions
envisaged for providers will not apply to those representing the
State and this raises serious questions about equality of arms.
There are also concerns about the efficiency drive on suppliers
that will not be matched by other agencies in the justice system.
Although Lord Carter acknowledges the inefficiencies caused by
other agencies in the system, there are no firm plans to effectively
address this. Whereas providers are facing wholesale changes to
the structure of their organisations that have major implications
for the nature of provision and the justice system as a whole,
the only concrete proposal regarding other agencies is an annual
stakeholder meeting with the Lord Chancellor. Information sharing
and impact tests are welcome but there will be no specific financial
incentive for greater efficiency, which is the key principle being
applied to providers. It is unacceptable for the DCA to wash their
hands of this issue: the well-established principle of the "undivided
state" warns that one arm of the state should not wash its
hands of mischief emanating from other arms of the state. We firmly
believe that the polluter should pay: 99% of our respondents thought
that concrete arrangements should be made to reduce waste in the
system elsewhere simultaneously to the implementation of any change
to legal aid.
4.5 Too much, too soon without proper consultation
The proposed timetable is utterly unrealistic
and will result in the quick and irreversible loss of quality
services. We are further concerned about the administrative costs
of the proposed changes, which do not appear to have been fully
worked out. Finally, we are deeply concerned about the way in
which the "consultation" process has been conducted.
Even the hours spent on these submissions may be further time
wasted: Lord Carter is reported in the Law Society Gazette
as saying that he has no problem with the Committee investigating
but thinks that firms should "press ahead". We believe
that this attitude is symptomatic of the way that the entire inquiry's
iterative process has been conducted whereby "consultation"
is in effect "information"—and that is provided
an interested party can get an audience. We enclose at Appendix
2 our correspondence with Lord Carter on this subject. One respondent
to the survey commented that the Carter review team "...should
have carried out a consultation of legal aid practitioners before
making recommendations rather than afterwards!"
Moreover, the DCA's plans for the future of
legal services as set out in the Legal Services Bill have serious
implications for the future of legal aid but have been erroneously
omitted from consultation sought by the Carter review, although
they clearly influence its entire ethos. However, we believe that
the impact of all these reforms will be so immense for clients
that they deserve full scrutiny. In particular, as the next generation
of legal aid lawyers, who will be expected to conduct work within
the new regime, we are deeply concerned by Lord Carter's proposals
and believe that they will have a profound effect on the sustainability
of the profession. It is to these specific matters that we now
turn.
5. THE PROPOSED
REFORMS WILL
REDUCE THE
INCENTIVE FOR
YOUNG LEGAL
AID LAWYERS
TO WORK
IN THE
FIELD
5.1 Young legal aid lawyers are drawn to
legal aid work precisely because they have a strong sense of social
justice and in order to provide good quality advice and representation.
But most of our members feel that the reforms will undermine the
justice system, reducing quality, access and choice and thereby
removing the key incentive for their commitment to legal aid.
Further, if we are prevented from providing a good quality of
service, many of us will feel that it is simply not worth the
financial sacrifice. Without decent remuneration many young lawyers
will simply be unable to work in this field. The survey results
demonstrate the lack of appeal that the proposed reforms have
for young lawyers. 95% of respondents felt that the Carter Review
would have a negative impact on new entrants into the profession.
59% of respondents said that the proposed reform had caused them
to consider an alternative career. Almost a third of respondents
(32%) did not believe that they would be working in publicly funded
work in five years time.
5.2 Undermining access to justice and quality
Social justice is the dominant motivation for
young legal aid lawyers to enter the profession. YLAL fear that
a dramatic shift of focus towards any financial control which
fails to protect the quality of services for clients undermines
that end goal both in direct terms of outcomes for clients and
in principle. Many members state that this will lead to them leaving
legal aid.
5.3 However, it is not only the financial
constraints of the Carter reforms that YLAL members perceive as
a threat to access to justice. Insofar as the proposals are aligned
with the plans for the future regulation of legal services these
also act as disincentives (we have addressed these problems in
the CLS strategy response appended). Young lawyers are concerned
that the principles that led them into legal aid work are being
eroded. One survey respondent considered that the reforms would
mean:
"Less chance for continuity of contact with
clients, many of whom will have difficult personal circumstances
and so require perception and understanding in their dealings
with lawyers"
5.4 Young legal aid lawyers are motivated
to work in legal aid by the factors set out at paragraph 3.1.
Providing a quality service is something we take pride in and
which is fundamental to the character of the job. Many young legal
aid lawyers consider that Carter will detract from their ability
to provide a quality service, leading to negative consequences
for their clients and their careers. Our survey responses note
that the fixed fee contract proposals will lead to a loss of quality.
Comments on this aspect were frank: "If I can't do the job
properly I don't want to do it at all".
5.5 YLAL are concerned that fixed fees will
diminish an adviser's ability to respond flexibly and sensitively
to an individual's circumstances. This will subsequently undermine
a client's confidence and have potentially adverse effects on
the conduct of their case. A lack of recognition of the quality
of service provided is an evident disincentive to young lawyers.
One survey response noted the focus on spend as opposed to quality
as a major disincentive for young lawyers:
"I fear that a career in legal aid is being
continuously and irreversibly downgraded from that of a high skilled,
respected, and regarded profession to a more menial and administrative
one."
5.6 Another aspect of the quality issue
is the fear that the proposals will push out specialist and niche
practices. These are exactly the types of firms that carry out
some of the most important work protecting individuals. A survey
response read:
"There has been worryingly little attention
paid to specialist/niche firms in Carter which leads to the question
of whether he appreciates what work is done by these firms...
in many ways this oversight is one of the most worrying as the
work of these firms is often at the cutting edge of developments
in the legal world especially in relation to public interest and
human rights cases."
Typically respondents felt "firms will
focus in common practice areas to ensure they are meeting targets
and avoid specialisms". Those law firms that support niche
practices will simply be unable to sustain that type of work under
the new proposals. One respondent pointed out that specialist
practice: "requires input of time that Carter will not allow
in order to train staff and develop expertise... it would be uneconomical
under Carter for any firm to do this".
5.7 The pay will be too poor
For many young lawyers a career in legal aid
will not be realised simply because the pay is too poor. As one
young lawyer put it: "I cannot afford to make ends meet".
This concern is clearly shown in the survey results. Of the YLAL
members who do not work in legal aid 58% did not do so because
it was too poorly paid. 51% of respondents felt that insufficient
funding in this area was the main threat to publicly funded work.
The following comments reflect the financial pressures that young
legal aid lawyers find themselves under:
"It has made me (against every principle
that made me start doing legal aid work) consider whether pragmatically
I can justify carrying on this work when it could jeopardise my
future earnings so significantly that it would be irresponsible
to my family to continue."
"...as much as I enjoy the work, if I am
unable to pay off my debts when other so called "key workers"
are getting student loans paid off for them and help with housing
etc, it all becomes a little disillusioning."
"...I'm not sure if I'll earn enough money
to have a decent, basic standard of living which becomes more
important the older I get. I'd get paid more being a tube driver."
"I will not be able to afford to pay off
my debts, let alone think about buying a house for many years
to come. This is in contrast to my friends working in city firms
who are earning over three times my salary."
"Less pay and worse conditions."
"I will not get a decent income commensurate
to my educational worth."
"No annual pay rise—I earn £21,000
and am a qualified solicitor! Had I become a teacher I'd be far
better off."
6. REDUCTION
IN DIVERSITY
6.1 YLAL are concerned that the current
proposals may lead to a reduction in diversity among legal aid
practitioners. This is an area that will have a particular impact
on young lawyers in their recruitment, training and long term
career prospects. In addition many of our members are concerned
about the implications for their client base and see the Carter
reforms restricting the service that they will be able to provide
to vulnerable and socially excluded clients. In particular, the
move towards larger firms was thought to have a negative impact
on diversity by 92% of respondents to the YLAL survey. The following
response to the YLAL survey reflects the comments of many members:
"It will reduce client choice. Smaller firms
are more likely to reflect the community they serve, and to have
direct links with and understanding of their local community (generalising).
Larger firms are less likely to have these direct links with their
clients. This could lead to a less personalised service, and deter
some clients (particularly some ethnic minority clients, for example)
from seeking legal advice, reducing access to justice."
6.2 YLAL members are not only concerned
about minority groups but also poor and socially excluded clients.
A typical example was the account of one young barrister who recently
represented a client in relation to a Crown Court hearing. The
young man in question could not afford to attend a conference
with counsel in central London because he could not afford the
£6 tube ticket. Thankfully his solicitor was based at a small
local office and it was possible to re-arrange the meeting at
that location close to where he lived in North London. Not only
will the move towards fewer larger firms have a direct impact
in terms of issues such as travel costs, but YLAL members also
noted the less direct implications, observing:
"Larger firms may not be able to provide
the same personalised service to clients and clients may feel
they are less approachable."
"Less individual attention, less knowledge
of community and families."
6.3 One of the major consequences of the
Carter reforms will be to reduce the number of small firms bidding
for legal aid work. This will automatically have a disproportionate
impact on black, minority and ethnic (BME) firms and their clients.
Minority firms have a significant presence in the legal aid market,
with over 40% of criminal defence firms in London being minority
owned. Lord Carter's report does not accept that larger firms
bidding for fixed fee work will disadvantage BME firms, barristers
and their clients. YLAL cannot see how that disadvantage can be
avoided under the current proposals. Lord Carter suggests that
an LSC monitoring group will ensure that this is prevented and
he has obtained Leading Counsel's opinion that his proposals are
diversity compliant. YLAL do not believe that a single opinion
from leading counsel is a sufficient justification for imposing
reforms.
6.4 YLAL's membership reflected many of
the concerns raised by the Carter Diversity Group (CDG). The CDG
is made up of "a broad cross section of black minority ethnic
(BME) barristers and solicitors, including representatives from
the Black Solicitors Network (`BSN'), the Society of Asian Lawyers
(`SAL'), the Carter Group of BME barristers and solicitors, the
South Eastern Circuit Minorities Committee (`SECMC') and members
of the Bar Council's Race and Religion Committee. CDG is not a
Bar Council or Law Society representative Group". YLAL would
endorse the very important issues raised in that report. In particular
the group notes that the CDG conclude:
"The impact of Lord Carter's proposals is
likely to also severely reduce the numbers of new entrants to
the legal profession from BME backgrounds, and of BME practitioners
available for promotion to judicial office."
7. YOUNG LEGAL
AID LAWYERS
WILL BE
PREVENTED FROM
PROGRESSING IN
A CAREER
IN LEGAL
AID
7.1 There is a real concern amongst our
membership that, with the best will in the world, it will simply
be impossible for young lawyers to progress in a career in legal
aid. This is a problem that Lord Carter admitted first hand knowledge
of as he explained to an audience at the Law Society that his
own daughter had not been able to get a training contract in legal
aid and had gone to work for the Home Office instead. But YLAL
are anxious that bright and committed lawyers should not be excluded
from representing the most vulnerable. YLAL calls for firm measures
to be put in place to ensure that the profession does not suffer
from a skills desert to complement the advice deserts. The Carter
report is already having a negative effect on recruitment and
we have enclosed at Annex 3 a letter from the Law Careers Advisor
at the University of Oxford setting out his concerns to us. We
have called for an impact assessment on the effects of the proposals
on young lawyers and incentives for firms to offer training contracts.
7.2 Concerns that young lawyers will simply
be prevented from progressing in a career in legal aid stem from
concerns that there will be a reduction in training opportunities,
that the reforms will see an increase in the use of paralegals
and that it will simply become too expensive for young lawyers
to train and survive in legal aid.
7.3 The Skills desert: Reduction in training
opportunities and an increase in use of paralegals
Training young lawyers to become well-rounded
practitioners competent to deal with a broad range of areas will
not be a priority for firms under intense commercial pressure.
The new commercial ethos will have a significant effect on training
and jobs on qualification. It is already immensely difficult for
young lawyers to secure training contracts and pupillages to undertake
publicly funded work and many young lawyers are forced to leave
the field or work for years as a paralegal. Firms subject to market
competition may not have the stability to undertake the training
of young lawyers for two years. It is likely that providers will
seek to rely on the use of paralegals trained in specific areas
to provide cheaper "bulk" services. Trainees, attracted
to developing expertise in a broad range of areas, may well find
this impossible within the new structure. This will further exacerbate
the present lack of training contracts and accompanying dearth
of qualified and experienced young legal aid lawyers. At present
legal aid firms cannot afford to take on trainees but desperately
need qualified solicitors. The proposals can only make this situation
worse.
7.4 42% of respondents to the survey felt
that the Carter review had already affected them. Many were able
to provide examples of firms rejecting training contract applications
because of the proposals:
"Many firms I contacted told me that they
were not recruiting for the foreseeable future until they knew
in the short term at least how they would be affected by the report—ie
possible restructuring priorities, and no capacities to take on
new staff."
"I have been told by one firm that they
are not recruiting trainees in 2007 in view of Carter. I have
been told by another firm that they can make no guarantees that
they will be recruiting trainees in 2008 in view of Carter."
"Some local firms dependent on legal aid
have informed me that they cannot give training contracts because
they cannot afford to and further change in legal aid will mean
that they will not be able to make training contract offers any
time in the foreseeable future."
"There is a fear that there will be a recruitment
drive to employ inexperienced and unqualified staff to undertake
case preparation."
"A firm I currently work for (small criminal
legal aid firm) is closing down mainly due to Carter implications.
On interviews smaller firms are only offering paralegal positions
rather than training contracts due to the uncertain implications
of Carter."
"My chambers collapsed while I was in the
middle of pupillage training as a result of anticipation of Carter."
"I have been told I will not be kept on
in a post as a newly qualified criminal solicitor as a result
of Carter."
7.5 Despite our invitations to raise these
issues with Lord Carter in person, the report simply does not
deal with the need to ensure a next generation of well-trained
lawyers. Instead Lord Carter appears to believe that such opportunities
will flow from the new and profitable system. However, 95% of
respondents to the survey felt that the impact on recruitment
and intake of young lawyers should have been considered by the
review. The Legal Services Commission has constantly responded
to concerns about future generations of legal aid lawyers by referring
to their 100 sponsored training contracts. However, 94% of our
respondents felt that these sponsored training contracts were
not sufficient to deal with the problem.
7.6 It will be prohibitively expensive to
do legal aid work
We have outlined at 5.3 the extent to which
the poor pay acts as a disincentive to young lawyers who want
to work in legal aid. However, the financial considerations are
not just a disincentive but for some make it financially impossible
to work in the field, as shown by the following response to our
survey:
"I have a young family to support. Since
I went into the publicly funded sector 5½ years ago, hourly
rates have not changed, fixed fees have come in and are now being
restricted even further. I simply cannot afford to remain in the
sector if this is the way things are going."
Training as a lawyer is an expensive business.
49% of our respondents had spent between £10,000-£20,000,
16% had spent between £20-£30,000 and 8% had spent over
£30,000. 31% of our respondents owe between £10,000-£20,000,
22% owe between £20-£30,000 and 7% owe over £30,000
as a result of their education and training expenses. Such debts
will be almost impossible to pay off on the very low starting
salaries offered in legal aid and the possible abolition of the
minimum training contract salary further reduces prospects of
an financial certainty. The result will be that we loose bright
and committed lawyers simply because they cannot afford to be
legal aid lawyers.
8. YOUNG LEGAL
AID LAWYERS
THAT DO
CONTINUE TO
PRACTICE MAY
BE PARTICULARLY
DISADVANTAGED
8.1 YLAL have grave concerns over the negative
effect that these proposals will have on those who do manage to
enter or remain in the profession. It is a fact of commercial
business structures that junior staff come under the greatest
pressure when savings in time and costs need to be made. Despite
some claims that larger firms will have more resources for training,
70% of respondents to the survey felt that the move towards larger
firms would be likely to have a negative impact on training. With
increased emphasis on volume of output and the need to regulate
time spent on cases, trainees will face pressure to cut corners
to overcome the inefficiencies corresponding with their lack of
experience. This will go hand in hand with reduced time spent
by supervisors training and guiding young lawyers. The result
will be a pressure cooker in which both trainees' and supervisors'
levels of advice and representation suffer, leading to reduced
quality of service for clients.
8.2 93% of YLALs have stated that they believe
a fixed fee system will put pressure on them to provide a lower
standard of advice. Already trainees are reporting warnings from
supervisors over excess time spent attending on clients and that
they will have less contact for assistance should these proposals
go forward. One of the ways in which firms will deal with these
problems is to allocate more lower-level tasks to trainees, focusing
their skills in narrower areas and diminishing the quality and
breadth of their training. This will lead to reduced opportunities
for career development and the obvious risk that lawyers will
not have sufficient skills to identify more complex problems and
that such problems will not be resolved as expediently as possible.
Young lawyers will have an insufficient range of legal expertise
to deal with clusters of inter-related problems. Even where lawyers
have a broader knowledge, there will be insufficient flexibility
under a system of bulk bidding to deal with these problems. On
the other hand there is an equal danger that trainees will be
exposed to extremely complex casework and clients without the
necessary experience and without the requisite supervision. Such
a fraught decision making process is sure to undermine trainees'
confidence and, in turn, that of their clients and will ultimately
affect the quality of service.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 YLAL are deeply concerned that the proposals
in the Carter review will have disastrous and irreversible effects
on the justice system, for clients and providers. YLAL welcome
the Committee's inquiry into the impact of Lord Carter's proposals.
These submissions have addressed the key areas of the Committee's
terms of reference from the perspective of young lawyers. First,
YLAL consider that the proposed changes will have a negative impact
on the justice system. The view of young lawyers is that the proposals
will undermine social justice, which is the very basis on which
the legal aid system was founded. We submit that Lord Carter's
proposals need to be revised and reconsidered with a mind to protecting
access to justice and quality; in particular, more flexibility
needs to be built in to the proposals to meet clients' needs in
the interests of justice.
9.2 Second, we are convinced that the proposals
will have a disproportionate affect on certain types of providers,
hindering diversity among practitioners and discriminating against
clients from minority and underprivileged backgrounds.
9.3 Finally YLAL members believe that the
fixed fee proposals will have a negative impact on provision,
reducing quality and leading to a loss of highly trained practitioners
from the field of legal aid. As Lord Carter says, sustainability
is key and without a future generation of committed legal aid
lawyers sustainability is impossible.
9.4 YLAL are disappointed that we were not
consulted during the review but in lieu of that consultation,
YLAL respectfully seek that the Committee considers our submissions
in its recommendations. In particular, we call for an impact assessment
of the effect of the proposals on the next generation of legal
aid lawyers and for measures to be put in place to protect the
intake and training of future legal aid lawyers.
9.5 YLAL hope that the comments and evidence
provided in these submissions will be of interest to the Committee
and stress that we would be willing to give oral evidence to the
Committee should that be of assistance.
October 2006
| 
