11/11/2011 – Hanging on the telephone
Sometimes the obvious things aren't always as valid as people think. The Sun revolving around the Earth was thought true, until Copernicus suggested otherwise. The Earth was generally regarded to be flat, until Magellan sailed away and circumnavigated the globe. Heck, until recently, it was believed that Wigan would win the Challenge Cup every season without fail. What these all prove though, is that the obvious conclusion is not always the correct conclusion.
I was reminded of this reading a report on something which may be much more mundane in many ways, but to me, of crucial importance for thousands of vulnerable people who need legal advice. Currently, anyone with a legal problem can call Community Legal Advice (CLA) by telephone, but they can also visit any legal aid provider to discuss their options for resolution of their problem. For many, the opportunity to sit down with a legal adviser and discuss their difficulties is far more preferable than talking to a remote presence.
Yet, under current Government proposals for legal aid reform, anyone potentially needing free legal advice will be required to use a telephone service as their primary point of access. The telephone gateway is intended to find out whether people have a legal problem, whether they are eligible for legal aid, and if so, whether their problem is complex enough for face-to-face advice. This raises real issues around access to justice for people with communication or literacy problems, with mental capacity issues, or even simply being able to afford or access a telephone call.
The Ministry of Justice equality impact assessment says that by narrowing the choice of access points available to people seeking legal advice, they aim to offer "better value for money in respect of legal aid expenditure". Seems like a no-brainer doesn't it, telephone services must be cheaper and quicker than all the costs of actually meeting someone in the flesh in a real-life setting?
Except for a rather inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase) - this may not actually be the case. Researchers from University College London decided to investigate the similarities and differences between the two routes of access. Using Legal Services Commission data from housing cases, they examined how different client groups accessed services and the outcomes that occurred as a result. The findings make for interesting reading (at least in my opinion).
Of particular importance to proposals to move to a primarily telephone-based system of legal aid, their report Just a phone call away: Is telephone advice enough? finds that telephone advice takes on average 14 minutes longer than face-to-face advice. In the context of these reforms, they say it is especially important to note the differences in advice times between those cases remaining in scope of the legal aid scheme (homelessness) and those which will not (housing benefit), with the former generally taking longer than the latter.
In short, a switch to telephone provision could actually lead to a rise in average advice time of cases, when compared to existing services. Whether the economies offered by lower overhead costs of telephone provision will be sufficient to offset the costs generated by higher advice times is certainly open to debate. Basically, their findings suggest that there are substantial risks inherent in such a dramatic channel shift for legal advice, on a costs basis as well as in restricting access to justice for those who need it most.
Interestingly, they also note that given the relative ease of telephone access, there is a risk of services being overwhelmed by callers who do not have eligible problems or do not meet the criteria for free advice. So they also warn that there is insufficient evidence from the current CLA telephone service to show that telephone advice can deliver the range of benefits from face-to-face services. This uncertainty is reinforced by findings that the overwhelming majority of telephone cases do not progress beyond the stage of a first meeting. In my experience, complex legal problems are very rarely sorted out properly and resolved in a single meeting.
As another report from the Civil Justice Council on litigants in person highlighted, "while technology and improved written materials are essential, they are not alone sufficient to achieve the support required. People are the most important resource for all self-represented litigants, but especially the most vulnerable." Anyone who knows me knows how much I believe in technology and what it can deliver but it is not enough on its own.
I do hope we're not in danger of sailing over the edge of something that will cost us all far more in the long run. If people are not able to access high quality legal advice on social welfare law problems, we know that these problems become entrenched, complex and more costly to resolve in the long run. And restricting access to telephone-only runs a very serious risk of creating that very situation. With the current economic problems showing no sign of ebbing away, we should be aiming to ensure the safety net is in place, not cutting the strings one by one.
Posted by Terry Stokes