STOPPING legal aid for divorcing couples is “no April Fools’ joke” according to Warrington solicitors Forshaws Davies Ridgway (FDR).
The firm warns that cutting legal aid from April 1 for separating and divorcing couples will cause hardship. 
After that date only people who have suffered proven domestic violence or forced marriage will be able to apply for legal aid. Everyone else will have to fund their own legal work or represent themselves in court.
QualitySolicitors FDR says this leaves less than two months for anyone on a low income to seek professional subsidised advice and representation on family law issues such as divorce, child contact, maintenance and financial issues.
Audrey Venables (pictured), the firm’s head of family law, said: “Since the previous Government first proposed this cut in 2009, the legal profession has been campaigning against the decision. We are very concerned it will leave the most vulnerable people in our society without the ability to access legal advice and representation.
“For example, a mother and father who cannot agree on the arrangements for their children will now have to represent themselves in court if they cannot afford a lawyer. As well as those on benefits, stay-at-home parents will also be disadvantaged because they may be forced to represent themselves against their more affluent partner who is able to hire a professional advocate.”
Ms Venables said cuts would cause inequalities and an imbalance of power for those who have chosen to stay at home with children.
Anyone who may be eligible to continue to seek legal aid due to domestic violence should seek help from the police or their GP.
To help those now facing court costs the firm has devised a package of easy payment measures, including a fixed fee menu of prices or a pay-as-you-go system, enabling clients to select help when they need it most.
3 Comments
Well of course any legal aid cut is bad news for lawyers, they will lose the opportunity to make even more money!! If this makes people stop and think more carefully about their commitment before they get married it will be a good thing. Couples spend thousands on their one big wedding day, why should they also not have to pay to untie the knot (and plan to pay for it, if this is their choice? Why should the taxpayer fork out for legal aid?
Solicitor moans about loss of income but at the same time advertises her services, I suppose it is cheaper than buying advertising space. You pay for your wedding, you pay for your divorce. Simple.
It seems odd that whenever the long suffering taxpayer is invoked it`s in relation to spending on welfare benefits or legal aid and rarely a word is said about the massive cost of defence or general government waste , for instance . The provision of legal aid was one of the fundamental components of the welfare state and was always intended to assist the less well off and vulnerable to negotiate the complexities of a legal system which has become ever more complicated .
Whist we might agree with the sentiment that it is better for marriages to hold togethet it would be a vain hope to suggest that the cost of divorce might deter the hasty romantic .
If we can`t use tax revenues to provide a fair system of justice what are taxes for ? to fund duck houses and second homes for impoverished politicians perhaps .