Legal Aid Agency

4. Mrs C raises two separate complaints about the LAA:

Complaint 1 - The LAA’s decision to grant legal aid to Mr X

5. Mrs C complains the LAA should not have granted legal aid to Mr X in May 2021. She says Mr X has the financial means to fund his own legal representation, and the LAA granted him legal aid in error. She asked the LAA to investigate its decision to grant legal aid to Mr X.

Complaint 2 - The LAA’s actions regarding Mr X’s solicitors

6. Mrs C complains the LAA should not have allowed the solicitors who represented Mr X to access legal aid funding, because she says the solicitors acted inappropriately. Specifically, she says the solicitors breached court procedures and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct for Solicitors (the SRA Code of Conduct).

7. Mrs C says she holds the LAA partly responsible for the solicitors’ actions because the firm had access to legal aid funding. She complains the LAA did not do enough to ‘check or monitor’ the solicitors’ operational practices before agreeing to fund their work. She also says the LAA ‘knew or should have known’ about the solicitors’ actions and should not have allowed them to get legal aid funding.

8. Since 2018 Mrs C and her husband, Mr C, have been involved in a series of legal proceedings with Mr X.

9. As part of legal proceedings between Mrs C and Mr X in May 2021, an application was made to commit Mr X to prison for contempt of court. Mr X applied for criminal legal aid for the proceedings, and the LAA granted this.

10. Mrs C submitted a complaint to the LAA on 13 May 2021 saying Mr X should not have been granted legal aid because he can pay for representation himself. She got a final complaint response from the LAA on 8 February 2022.

11. Mrs C made more complaints to the LAA on 15 and 20 September 2022 to complain about the LAA’s actions towards the solicitors who represented Mr X. The LAA responded to her complaint on 4 October 2022.

Complaint 1 – The LAA’s decision to grant legal aid to Mr X

14. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs of maladministration (fault) or signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not seen any signs that something went wrong in this part of the complaint.

15. The LAA’s decisions about whether to grant legal aid are governed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and by the regulations and guidance made under this Act. In this case, Mrs C and Mr X were parties to committal proceedings for a contempt of court application brought against Mr X. These proceedings took place in a civil court because they were connected to civil dispute between Mrs C and Mr X. The rules for legal aid in civil contempt of court proceedings are explained in the LAA application guidance.

16. Page four of the 2020 civil contempt guidance says, ‘contempt proceedings heard in civil venues are not means tested’. This means the LAA would not have had to take Mr X’s financial circumstances into account because he applied for legal aid in connection to the contempt of court proceedings between him and Mrs C.

17. There is no sign of maladministration in Mrs C’s complaint about the LAA’s decision to grant legal aid to Mr X.

Complaint 2 - The LAA’s actions regarding Mr X’s solicitors

18. Mrs C complains the LAA should not have let the solicitors who represented Mr X access legal aid funding because they acted inappropriately. She says they breached court procedures and the SRA Code of Conduct.

19. Solicitors who receive legal aid funding do so under a contract with the LAA. The terms of this contract depend on the type of legal aid granted. In this case, Mr X was involved in committal proceedings for a contempt of court application in a civil court. Although the hearing took place in a civil court, committal proceedings are a criminal matter. The LAA told us the terms of the Standard Crime Contract 2022 apply to the LAA’s relationship with Mr X’s solicitors. They say the terms of the 2022 contract replace those of previous contracts. This means the terms of the latest contract apply to the relationship between Mr X’s solicitors and the LAA even though the 2017 contract was in force at the time of the events Mrs C complains about.

20. The Standard Crime Contract also says solicitors working under a criminal legal aid contract are considered independent providers of legal services and the LAA is not liable for any of the solicitors’ actions carried out under contract. This means the LAA is not responsible for the actions of Mr X’s solicitors. Because of this, we have not seen any evidence of failings in the LAA’s actions.

21. Mrs C also complains the LAA should have done more to monitor the solicitors’ actions. She says they breached professional conduct standards and court procedures, and the LAA should not have let them access legal aid funding on the basis of this conduct.

22. The LAA say solicitors which are party to legal aid contracts are assigned a contract manager who monitors their work. The LAA’s Standard Crime Contract states legal providers ‘must’ comply with all relevant legislation, procedural rules and professional body rules. The wording of this clause shows it is a core requirement of the LAA’s contract for solicitors to comply with the law and professional body rules. The LAA told us that under the standard crime contract, it can end contracts with legal providers when they get a report from an official investigatory body which:

‘identifies that there has been such a serious breach of Contract or of legislation or such serious professional misconduct or dishonesty that, in all the circumstances, termination is justified’.

These practices and policies are in keeping with our Principles that say, ‘public bodies should necessarily assess risks as part of taking decisions’.

23. But the LAA does not have the power to investigate solicitors for misconduct. The SRA is the body responsible for monitoring the standards of solicitors and for taking action in the event of professional misconduct. The terms of the LAA’s Standard Crime Contract make it clear that the LAA would expect regulatory bodies to investigate any breaches of legislation, court procedures, or professional body standards, and the LAA told us this is its position.

24. Mrs C has not given evidence to show Mr X's solicitors have been found guilty of misconduct, or for breaches of legislation and/or court procedures. In its correspondence to Mrs C on 8 February 2022, the LAA said it does not consider there is evidence to suggest misconduct. For these reasons, we consider the evidence shows the LAA has responded appropriately to Mrs C’s complaint about its decision to allow the firm to access legal aid funding.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mrs C’s complaint about the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) decision to grant legal aid to Mr X, who was the defendant in legal proceedings involving Mrs C. We have also carefully considered Mrs C’s complaint about the LAA’s decision to fund the solicitors who represented Mr X, even though Mrs C raised concerns about the solicitors’ conduct with the LAA.

2. We recognise the events which led Mrs C to complain are very important to her. We appreciate Mrs C’s complaint is connected to legal proceedings which have had a longstanding impact on her life.

3. We have exchanged correspondence with Mrs C and carefully considered the issues she raised in her two complaints. Having done so, we have seen no sign that anything went seriously wrong, as the evidence shows the LAA acted in line with the relevant policies and guidance.