the Access to Justice Act 1999, the government has undergone some important reforms in the state-funded legal services’ provision, with the intention to bring about improvements in the availability and the quality of legal services and also controlling the budget. The major change made under the Access to Justice Act 1999 was the completion of a demand-driven system in civil matters and the establishment of a fixed budget every year.

Furthermore, the amount set aside for civil cases was limited to the amount remaining after the budgetary expenses of the Legal aid fund for criminals. In 1999, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) was established and in April 2001 it replaced the Legal Aid Committee. Currently, LSC’s budget is around £2 billion to establish standards and availability of legal services. To obtain a quality mark, the legal service provider must meet established quality standards.

Community Legal Service Partnerships

The LSC establishes links with other sponsors of legal services such as local councils to help finance local consultancy centres to create a network of legal service providers. The LSC establishes the CLSP in each agency, including the local government and other legal service sponsors to coordinate legal planning and funding. In the past, in civil matters, the legal aid was provided on the application’s basis. Currently, there is a fund fixed for the public legal service that includes a fixed amount of funds every year as part of a regular set of public spending plans.

According to AJA 1999, the LSC is responsible for achieving the best quality per price ratio, which is a combination of price and quality. Under the AJA 1999, only lawyers or consultants who have a contract with the LSC can provide advice or representatives sponsored by the LSC. Regarding professional law, such as clinical negligence, mental health, immigration, and family law, only professional companies can do this work. It is stated by the government that such cases are not adequate for justifying the public funding, and might be appropriate for the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA).

In McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris, linked with the Steel & Morris v United Kingdom, the defendant published a six-page brochure “What’s wrong with McDonald’s?” Based on this brochure. McDonald’s has filed a lawsuit against slander. The defendant sought legal aid but was denied legal aid because there was no legal aid available for defamation. The defendant should have represented himself, and McDonald’s was the principal lawyer, junior attorney