Log in
The impact of a research programme into quality assessment measures for publicly funded legal services has been the establishment of a peer review programme for all civil and criminal lawyers operating in Scotland, England and Wales. This programme has ensured that the quality of service provided by legal aid lawyers in Scotland is consistently high, with only 10% of providers failing routine reviews. Moreover, the errors that do emerge are primarily administrative failings rather than poor legal advice. The Scottish model has been the basis for pilot projects in the Netherlands, Finland and Moldova, and has been drawn on for a peer review programme for all Dutch notaries.
An AHRC and ESRC-funded Edinburgh research collaboration with the Argentinian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovative Production (MOST), from 2007-2012, served as a key driver in the formation of regulatory structures, norms, knowledge and social understanding, helping to overcome state non-intervention in the regulation of regenerative medicine. As a direct result of engagement with the stakeholders in law/policy, medical and scientific communities, the research exposed a strong appetite for top-down legal intervention. This culminated in the first-ever model law presented by the MOST to the Argentine legislature (Congress) in 2013.
Professor Hodgson's empirical criminal justice research has resulted in the creation of new professional standards encouraging proactive defence lawyering and quality assessment requirements for the legal profession in England and Wales. A model of more effective defence rights, underpinned by empirical research in English, Welsh and French criminal justice, has also influenced recent developments in Scotland and in EU criminal justice; has been relied upon in extradition proceedings in the UK and Canada; and, through a study at the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), has improved legal representation of those seeking to have their cases reviewed for appeal, as well as the Commission's ability to work with defence lawyers.
The underpinning research arose from an ESRC-funded project on the "Optimal Design of Decision and Enforcement Procedures for Competition Policy" by Professor David Ulph (St Andrews) and Professor Yannis Katsoulacos (AUEB). This influenced the penalty policies of competition authorities in two countries: the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in the UK and the Autorite de la Concurrence (AdC) in France. For OFT it contributed to the formulation of revised penalty guidelines, specifically a proposed increase in baseline penalty from 10% to 30%. For AdC it impacted on the formulation of the first penalty guidelines they published. Thus our research had impact on the only two major Competition Authorities in the world who revised penalty policy in last 5 years.
By exploring the social and economic effects of cuts in funding for legal aid, this research directly influenced legislation aimed at preserving legal aid for welfare benefit appeals. This was a major victory for campaigners who cited the research to lobby against cuts proposed by the 2011 Legal Aid Bill. The research informed a proposed House of Lords amendment to the Bill. Although the amendment was turned back by the House of Commons, welfare benefit appeals on points of law were discussed during the second reading and retained within the scope of legal aid funding.
This case-study is based on research conducted by Professor Francis at Keele University which provides insights into three crucial aspects of social mobility and access to the legal professions: legal executives, part-time law students, and legal work experience. This work has made a significant contribution to practitioner debate, practitioner practice and policy change. Key impacts of this research have been the promotion of debates within the legal profession around diversity which has led both to a much wider professional and government awareness of these issues in the UK, and the development of policies and schemes to address such issues.