YLAL Statement on LAA Breach Update and Contingency Measures

Young Legal Aid Lawyers remains gravely concerned about the hack on the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), especially with the newly announced contingency payment arrangements (designed to bridge the gap while the CCMS portal is offline) and the extraordinary burden this places on early-career legal aid lawyers.

The Contingency Payment Arrangements

On 28 May 2025, the Legal Aid Agency rolled out contingency arrangements for Civil Representation work. Under the scheme, providers and counsel must opt in weekly at 12pm on Monday to receive an advance calculated as a simple three-month average. These sums are not final payments but “loans” that the LAA will claw back in full as soon as the system is restored. Especially for junior barristers, some of whom may have been in practice for just over three months, this means converting desperately needed income into a rapid-repayment debt, often before any normal LAA fees would have fallen due under normal circumstances.

The contingency guidance does not address how this will work for those without a three-month billing history (e.g. second six pupils), leaving new entrants, usually the most financially vulnerable, without any safety net at all. Although the Bar Council states that these members of the Bar can apply via the escalation process, there is no detail on how long this process would take, and what is required for the application process.

The practical consequences are stark. Chambers and firms often lack clear procedures for advancing funds or absorbing these loans on behalf of their junior members. Meanwhile, the additional administrative work at a time is extremely burdensome when juniors are already stretched. With no published plan for how billing backlogs will be prioritised once CCMS returns, there is no certainty that junior-led claims will be processed in a timely fashion.

We call on the Ministry of Justice and the LAA to recognise these perverse incentives and to act without delay. Specifically, they must:

Guarantee parallel processing of all bills submitted for the period during which CCMS was down with submitted bills after CCMS is functional again; and
Extend eligibility for contingency advances to those without recent billing histories, by revising the calculation methodology and working with Chambers administrators to understand the billing of the most junior members.

At the same time, chambers and law firms must step up to support their junior members. Clear internal protocols should be established for advance payments, and administrative support must be provided to manage both the opt-in process and subsequent reconciliations. Professional bodies – including the Inns of Court, the Bar Council, CILEx and the Law Society – should proactively clarify or update their hardship support in light of these issues, focusing particularly on junior members whose bulk of work are legally aided.

Our members, many of whom entered the profession to uphold access to justice and often already receive the bare minimum financially, cannot be forced into further financial jeopardy and apply for finance loans at the outset of their careers to make ends meet. We urge all stakeholders to ensure that these contingency arrangements do not undermine the very principles they aim to safeguard.

Although the contingency payment arrangements are for civil legal aid providers, criminal practitioners are equally impacted by the additional administrative burden, including having to:

Work with outdated PDF forms from 2009 (CRM5s); and
Submit paper forms and file of papers (CRM7s)

Each application requires a different submission form and format, taking time from an overstretched sector, that should be spent with clients instead.

The impact of insufficient guidance

We also consider the existing guidance for practitioners on existing and new legal aid applications to be insufficient, especially given the contingency payment plan indicates CCMS will continue to be down for several weeks. It has been five weeks since the hack was first discovered and there has been no time line released, or even an indication of one, on how this will be resolved.

The only existing guidance for civil legal aid applications is contained within a short section. Unsurprisingly, such brief guidance fails to cover the broad scope and varied nature of existing and new legal aid applications. The uncertainty arising from the minimal guidance is having a disproportionate impact on junior professionals, who are typically given the responsibility of dealing with the LAA administration.

Junior practitioners are spending significant amounts of time on calls with the LAA customer services team seeking specific directions on a case-by-case basis. More specific and detailed guidance would eliminate the necessity of the calls and allow an already capacity stretched sector to return to their typical day to day tasks.

We also remain concerned that, once CCMS functionality is restored, the impact of the fall-out will disproportionally impact junior practitioner’s time. To date, the LAA still cannot accept any new orders other than urgent applications for civil legal aid. Its current direction for practitioners to carry out work under delegated functions has created an ever-growing class of at-risk work that will eventually have to be assessed by the LAA. Where providers cannot use delegated functions and have an imminent court hearing, the lack of clarity on the criteria and process in which the LAA will make a decision on granting the funding further increases the volume of at-risk work that may be unpaid or disputed. Again, the burden of handling the administrative aspect of these disputes would disproportionately fall on junior practitioners, straining their workload even further.

The Ministry of Justice, LAA, and wider profession should prioritise providing the appropriate support to ensure that this, already over-stretched and over-burdened, sector is not further disproportionately impacted by the cyber-security breach.

The impact of the data leak

Since the initial announcement on 19 May, little information has been further shared on the actual data leaked. The LAA’s own FAQ states that some financial details of providers may have been exposed, and that the public whose data may have been exposed were considered to be informed via the public announcement on the Government’s website.

We understand the need for confidentiality during the investigation, but this lack of information to providers and our clients is woeful. The LAA has further stated that they will not handle any individual enquiries, and that individuals who may have had their details exposed should reach out to their legal aid providers. Again, this places a disproportionate and additional burden on junior practitioners who often provide the most face-to-face support to vulnerable clients.

This data breach has not only increased the administrative burden on an already stressed sector, the lack of guidance and clear resolution timeline will also prolong the impact that this has on legal aid providers, and especially junior practitioners, even after the system is functioning again.

As this interim period continues until the systems are functioning again, we urge the MoJ, firms and chambers to ensure that junior practitioners are sufficiently supported to prevent any further drastic financial or workload burdens.

As always, please reach out to YLAL if you need support.

Young Legal Aid Lawyers
2 June 2025