Legal aid cuts 'will drive out the best', Lord Neuberger warns

Lord Neuberger has warned the government that the legal aid cuts will "drive out the best lawyers" and increase the cost of the courts.

In what he described as two "specific warnings to the government" based on his past experience, the president of the Supreme Court said good lawyers saved money because they were less likely to waste time, be responsible for miscarriages of justice and engender appeals and retrials.

"It is a mistake to have a new legal aid regime with a costs structure which will drive out the best lawyers," Lord Neuberger said.

"It is also a mistake to structure legal aid costs so as to reward lawyers for doing long trials: It inevitably means that trials last longer and cost more, and lawyers should be rewarded for cases lasting less time, not more."

In a speech at the Institute of Government, Lord Neuberger said it was vital for the MoJ to appreciate that any changes made to reduce legal aid and cut the cost of litigation would have a "knock-on effect" on the cost of the courts.

"Less legal aid means more unrepresented litigants and worse lawyers, which will lead to longer hearings and more judge-time. More judicial control of cases will mean more judge-time out of court to understand the details of each case in advance."

Lord Neuberger said the Jackson and Norgrove reforms were "both aimed at cutting cost and delay and will hopefully improve things", but "more radical solutions" might be required.

These included dispensing with discovery and cross-examination, "even with an oral hearing, in smaller cases".

The president of the Supreme Court said it was "better to have a judge's summary decision quickly at proportionate cost, than a disproportionately delayed decision at exorbitant cost, or no decision because it is too expensive to get to court".

He added: "We may have something to learn from online dispute resolution on e-Bay and elsewhere."

Earlier this year, Professor Richard Susskind, the Lord Chief Justice's IT adviser, attacked the Civil Justice Council for "failing to even look into" the potential of online dispute resolution schemes.