Mixed funding models for free and early legal advice
About the Project
The legal advice sector supports the most vulnerable in society, but its funding model is widely agreed to be in crisis. This is having a widespread impact on access to justice, the provision of safety-nets of support and the sustainability of the not for profit advice sector. This two year project, launched in April 2025, is funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It takes the form of a research collaboration between the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, the Access to Justice Foundation and the University of Surrey. The project is exploring a range of funding models operating successfully in other countries, which could be transplanted to the UK to support the work of organisations providing free legal advice.
This interdisciplinary research project will explore a range of funding models which do not exist or remain under-developed in a domestic context:
- Residual funds from collective action cases;
- Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA);
- Legal expenses insurance;
- Levies on large commercial law firms;
- The apprenticeship levy; and
- Re-direction of dormant client monies.
The project involves an in-depth examination of overseas schemes (history, characteristics, costs and benefits) to assess their potential in a UK setting. There will be four key stages: (a) interviews with providers of free advice to assess priorities and efficient and effective systems for fund distribution; (b) a comprehensive review of overseas schemes; (c) pause and evaluation; and (d) six in-depth case studies.
Each stage will be informed by stakeholder engagement workshops involving jurisdictional experts, lawyers, advice providers, financiers, regulators, insurers, economists and academics. The project will result in an open access database, a series of policy briefings, an accessible project report with practical recommendations and widespread dissemination of findings.
This project is funded by the Nuffield Foundation from April 2025 until May 2027.
Banner image by courtesy of Freepiks user 6702303.
Research Team
Latest News
A recent ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal about fees wrongly levied on consumers by Mastercard means that millions of shoppers could benefit from the settlement reached. Significantly for our alternative funding model research project, the judgement also made clear that any unclaimed cash from the settlement should go to the Access to Justice Foundation as the "prescribed charity to received undistributed funds" under the Consumer Rights Act. Clare Carter, chief executive of the Access to Justice Foundation and a sector partner on the research team, said it has "already begun working with partners to ensure any unclaimed money gets distributed to charities that will improve access to justice for those that need it the most".
Unclaimed funds in collective actions is one of the schemes that the alternative funding model project is looking into as a way of boosting the financing of free legal advice.
The government has recently confirmed that it will preserve funding for the apprenticeship route to becoming a solicitor: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-generation-of-builders-and-carers-set-to-rebuild-britain. The levy is a UK tax on employers with an annual pay bill of more than £3 million, which is used to fund apprenticeship training. The firms involved can use this levy to invest in apprenticeship training for their workforce or transfer up to half to other companies so that they can use it for that purpose instead. This raises issues of direct relevance to our work on alternative funding models for free legal advice providers, as those providing free legal advice services can benefit from transferred funds. The incentive for firms to transfer funds they do not use is that if the money is not used within two years it has to be given to the Treasury.
The apprenticeship levy is one of the six schemes our alternative funding models project is investigating and is of value because it can support capacity building in the free legal advice sector. There is currently a lack of any in-depth data on the apprenticeship levy, a gap which our project seeks to fill.
Professor Suzanne Chiodo critiques the use of cy-près distributions in collective actions, especially in the Merricks case. She argues that while cy-près aims to deter wrongdoing, it often fails to benefit class members directly, instead supporting general charities. Chiodo emphasizes that compensation for class members should remain the primary goal in collective proceedings.
An article discussing the implications of law firms retaining interest on client accounts, highlighting the ongoing debate and regulatory considerations.
A new research report by Liz Curran, Jane Ching, and Jane Jaman, calling for the exploration of alternative funding streams to enhance access to justice.