The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
DOCTORS have accused the Legal Aid Board of unrealistically raising the hopes of medical negligence plaintiffs by handing out legal aid casually.
The claim, made in the British Medical Association's response to Lord Mackay's legal aid Green Paper, has been met with fury by personal injury lawyers and prompted a vigorous LAB defence of procedures.
In a letter seen by The Lawyer, the BMA claims "the current 'merits' test is failing to discriminate adequately between good and bad cases".
It adds there is evidence that "legal aid certifying committees tend to view many applications with a lack of rigour and give an excessive benefit of the doubt to those seeking legal aid when a more careful analysis would demonstrate the case was most unlikely to succeed".
Leigh Day & Co's Russell Levy, of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said the claim was "misguided, ill-informed and not based on a true understanding of the situation".
An LAB spokeswoman said: "If there is a problem we think it lies more with the nature of medical negligence claims and the limited information available at the outset, not with the quality of decision making."
But the Law Society's head of professional policy Russell Wallman said the society's response to the Green Paper, published next week, would propose a more efficient legal aid system.