Robert Dahl

In the SERA we asked what proportion of people assisted with their employment problems needed to be referred on to other ‘providers’.

The majority of Law Centre and of CABx respondents reported that a quarter or less of clients assisted need to be referred elsewhere (87 per cent and 83 per cent respectively). And yet 10 per cent of Law Centres suggested the proportion was around a half and 11 per cent of CABx estimated it was over half (Table 63).

Table 63: Proportion of Law Centre and CABx clients who need to be referred on

CAB (%) Law Centre (%) Total (%)

Quarter or less 83.3 87.1 84.7

Around half 5.6 9.7 7.1

Over half 11.1 3.2 8.2 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0

N=85

We also asked about the reasons for referrals. Four possibilities were listed in the questionnaire and respondents were invited to tick all or any that were applicable. The findings are summarised in Table 64. Most respondents included union membership as a reason for referral, although Law Centres were more likely to do so than CABx (80 per cent and 63 per cent respectively). Law Centres were substantially more likely than CABx to indicate a full case load as a reason for referral (73 per cent and 39 per cent respectively) and Law Centres were twice as likely as CABx to include as a reason that the client was outside their catchment area (67 per cent and 35 per cent respectively). On the other hand, CABx respondents were twice as likely as counterparts in Law Centres to include ‘legal expertise’ as a reason for referring clients on (52 per cent compared to 23 per cent).

Table 64: Reasons for referring clients on

CAB (%) Law Centre (%) Total (%)

Outside catchment 34.8 66.7 47.4 Full caseload 39.1 73.3 52.6 Legal expertise 52.2 23.3 40.8 Trade union member 63.0 80.0 69.7

The SERA asked which organisations clients were referred on to and again invited respondents to tick all or any of the ‘options’ listed. As Table 65 indicates, there was relatively little difference between the Law Centre and CABx responses. Most frequently reported (by 67 per cent of all respondents) was referral to a trade union (see section above). Next was referral to a conditional fees solicitor (45 per cent), followed closely by referral to hourly paid solicitors (42 per cent). Just above a third (36 per cent) of respondents included referral to FRU (Free Representation Unit) or Pro Bono legal advice. A very large range of organisations was listed under ‘other’ – a response selected by 27 per cent of respondents. These included other CABx, other advice centres, Law Centres, Legal Aid solicitors, solicitors providing a free initial interview (that might establish whether the client was eligible for Legal Aid), and the legal advice service contracted under a household insurance policy.

Table 65: Organisations to which clients are referred

CAB (%) Law Centre (%) Total (%)

Solicitors (hourly paid) 42.2 41.9 42.1

Solicitors (conditional fees) 46.7 41.9 44.7

LawWorks Clinics 11.1 6.5 9.2

FRU/Pro Bono 33.3 38.7 35.5

Trade Union 68.9 64.5 67.1

Other 23.4 33.3 27.3

Responses to ‘other’: A colleague in another bureau, CABx in other areas, other advice centres, counsel, Employment Specialists, free initial solicitors interview to see if qualify for legal aid, home area CAB offices, household insurer where applicable, Law Centres/CABx/Legal Aid Solicitors, Merseyside Employment Law, neighbouring bureau with LSC contract, other advice agencies, other agencies or CLS, other law centres, referred to solicitor through household insurance policy

The qualitative interviews afforded further insight. Case overload was a main reason why Law Centres referred clients on or, as Law Centre advisers described the practice, turned clients away:

“The basic pressure is that there are more people who need our help

than we are capable of helping.”

As discussed above (Financial Resources) Law Centres were heavily reliant on LSC funding which, to varying degrees, was also a main income source for CABx. The terms and conditions of LSC funding in effect obliged the recipient legal advice service provider organisations to impose standard criteria in rationing their services.

“The downside is that because we’re under the Legal Services Commission you are prevented from, it’s going to sound a bit contradictory, but you are prevented from helping those who need it most. You might have someone come in with a complex issue, who needs help and have had the dirty done. There is the claim there, they do need help, but because may be the partner’s earnings or whatever, or they have equity in the home, they are not eligible for Legal Aid, so we are having to turn them away”.

(CAB Adviser, North) One CAB adviser reported that she screened clients before referring them on

within the bureau, to the employment adviser, by asking about the details of

their household content insurance and whether this included access to a legal advice service.

Since trade union members in principle have access to employment rights advice, Law Centre and CABx advisers are obliged to refer them back to the union, at least in the first instance.

“We’re not supposed to take them on if they are union members

because legal aid won’t cover it … We can, the problem for us is, there are many more clients who come to us who are non-union and therefore have no chance of getting help externally and therefore we would focus on them initially. If there are circumstances where, having made a real effort, the union still doesn’t do its bit, then yes we take cases on.”

As reported in Table 64, trade union membership was the reason most commonly cited by Law Centre and CABx respondents for referring a client on; in this case, back to the union. (See discussion on responses to union members in Clients seeking employment advice and union membership). CABx advisers rarely mentioned that they referred clients on because they were beyond the bureau’s catchment area. However, one employment adviser in a bureau in a rural area of East Anglia explained that as a result of limited time and resources he could only represent at Tribunal clients who were within that Tribunal’s catchment area. And the problem here, as elsewhere, was that there was no free or affordable source of legal advice and representation to refer clients to.

“There is a one-step law centre in XXX but I understand that they only do representation to the steps of the court, so they only produce case notes, they don’t actually represent at the hearing.”

(CAB Adviser, East)

There’s nowhere to refer him … I can say to him go and speak to a solicitor if he’s got the wherewithal.”

(Law Centre Adviser, North) One London Law Centre worker noted in respect to legal aid solicitors that there were ‘virtually none left’:

“We used to have an A4 double sided sheet of people who would take if we couldn’t, if we were over-loaded. It’s almost empty now. I mean, it’s almost not worth giving out. I think the three or so that remain, they can’t take them as they are over-loaded.”

(Law Centre Adviser, London) The CAB adviser in rural East Anglia argued in respect to private solicitors few were interested as employment cases were rarely profitable:

“They don’t want to know because there’s no money in it. There’s no

money in employment law, the people who are taking the cases can’t afford to pay £150 an hour for a solicitor. They certainly can’t afford the £1,500 that’s the normal charge for a day’s attendance at a Tribunal so they’re not going to go.”

(CAB Adviser, East) A law centre adviser argued that some solicitors took legal aid clients on a ‘loss leader’ basis:

“They’ll get people through the door on legal aid and they will, once

they get up to what we call the fixed fee, the £225, once a practice has done £225 worth of work, they move the client on to a no win, no fee arrangement, which is completely wrong. You’re not allowed to do that, but that’s what will happen. Suddenly there will be some spurious reason as to why the client should be moved on to a new arrangement, whereby effectively the supplier, the legal firm, is getting paid twice. He’s getting paid by the Legal Services Commission for the work, and they are taking 30 to 40 per cent of what the client wins.”

(Law Centre Adviser, North) Options for clients referred on might be narrowed to a conditional fees solicitor. A South of England CAB adviser explained how he gave clients:

“…a list of people in the area who are working in what is loosely called no win no fee, and say you might like to go and talk to them because if they want to take it on it means that you’re on a loser anyway and you might want to come back to us and think about it. So we talk to them along those lines because there is really no other place to send them.”

(CAB Adviser, South) Conditional fees solicitors make no charge if the client’s case is unsuccessful but may take as their fee a substantial cut of any award won.