Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
These cuts have aroused widespread denunciation from the legal community. Whilst the government maintains that these budgetary restrictions were put in place to detract from a “litigative society”, designed to encourage people to treat the courts as a last resort, these cuts have hit more deeply. This has resulted in what Amnesty International describe as a “two tier legal system” that discriminates against society’s most vulnerable despite government claims that cuts would only affect 2% of cases. Whilst access to wealth has long been a defined an individual’s capacity to instruct council, these cuts have particularly impacted the most helpless and marginalised. For instance, legal aid has been withdrawn from all child cases and legal areas including: private family law, immigration and welfare benefits. The withdrawal of funds in these areas will deeply impact the efficacy of social equality as the poorest are forced to exist without the protection of civil justice, or the opportunity to receive legal aid.
As the Ministry of Justice has seen a downward trend in its funding, crowdfunding has arisen as one alternative funding source. Crowdfunding connects litigants with sponsors who are prepared to contribute funds to cases even though they have no pre-existing interest in the litigation. This is a model which has found some success and popularity in software development and investment circles typically emerging in the USA. The question is: is this a credible and sustainable model for providing legal support in the UK? In this article we discuss the potential implications of crowdfunding as a funding component for the UK justice system and discuss whether—as a last resort— private investors should be picking up the pieces of a broken system?
In order to capture attention and investment, candidates must cultivate a “pitch” to describe their case to users. The reasons for this are twofold: first, this pitch provides insight into the specifics of a case to help explain the financial need and win support; second these pitches also lever an engaged audience who is emotionally invested in the outcome of their case. This is problematic for a number of reasons. It goes without saying that humans will naturally gravitate towards a certain type and quality of case; for instance, those accused of criminal activity may never secure the private funding necessary to help them secure representation. More gravely, this has profound implications for our justice system. If a system of selective funding was realised via Crowdfunding networks, “trial by public opinion”, could replace due legal process as potential investors come to their own conclusions of innocence and guilt, or blockade cases from receiving a fair trial or proper representation by constraining financial opportunity.
Crowdfunding also raises important questions surrounding the boundaries of Privilege. While it is given that a client must share some information about a case to convince potential donors, where should the line be drawn? Some commentators have suggested that investors should be updated throughout the trial to secure recurring funding if necessary. However, a necessity for transparency may raise difficulties and compromise the ability of the court to perform its duties with neutrality. This is particularly true if courts are bound by: non-disclosure agreements; out of court settlements or; involve minors or vulnerable people who must remain anonymous. How much do litigants owe their investors? Similarly, should those seeking funding credibly certify that a case has a reasonable chance of success before involving private investors? Another potential blockade in the pursuit of legal representation, persuading private investors of the worthiness of any given case undermines our right to a fair trial, and access to the courts. If a claim is quashed before it ever receives a hearing due to a negative success rate there is little to suggest that justice will ever be realised for that individual.
While the ethics of crowdfunding remain foggy, there is certainly a case for an alternate source of funding in the UK specifically for those who are unable to make use of rapidly diminishing Legal Aid services. The growing popularity of these platforms attest their increasing importance. Cultivating a crowd is one significant benefit of crowdfunding that, with time, will likely have broader implications for legal aid spending. These “crowds” may even prove influential in mobilising louder public critique of government cuts to legal aid.
Although, crowdfunding is a far cry from the perfect system, in our current political climate the alternative of a section of society losing access to representation is much more grave.
 The Guardian “Cuts to legal aid and courts make a mockery of access to justice”: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/17/cuts-to-legal-aid-and-courts-make-a-mockery-of-equal-access-to-justice
 Financial Times, UK court overturns government cuts to legal aid fees for solicitors: https://www.ft.com/content/6a1bedcc-9707-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e
0330 161 1234