The Legal Aid Agency has been criticised by the
Law Society because many areas of the country have little or no legal aid providers. Additionally, there have been disapprovals of the Legal Aid Agency's handling of exceptional case funding (ECF). ECF is legal funding for a case which does not fall within the scope of
LASPO. The Legal Aid Agency had planned for 5,000 to 7,000 applications for ECF in the first year post
LASPO, however only achieved 1,520. Further criticism stems from the Legal Aid Agency's payment and treatment of legal aid providers. Funding provided by the Legal Aid Agency can often take years to come through to
barristers. This was identified by the
Law Society of England and Wales during the pandemic, who pushed for further guidance from the Legal Aid Agency regarding
cash flow problems. The Law Society also expressed their view in a different report that fees provided by the Legal Aid Agency should be paid more fairly, and cover out-of-work hours performed by legal aid providers. In 2017, the Bach Commission called for the replacement of the Legal Aid Agency with an independent body that does not have any government involvement. In a 2018 High court Judgement, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) lost another Judicial Review. The case was to decide how much the LAA pays out in complex fraud cases. In 2021, leading solicitors launched legal action against the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). The Judicial Review was called because the LAA did not consult solicitors on changes to bringing cost assessment in house. This would mean there would be no independent review of how much the LAA would payout. So essentially the LAA would not be able to dispute payment with itself. == References ==