Justifying the LASPO Act: authenticity, necessity, suitability, responsibility and autonomy.

This article examines the ways in which the radical cuts to legal aid in private family law cases were presented and justified by the then government. It is argued that the targeting of legal aid in these cases for austerity measures was legitimated and facilitated by a skewed interpretation of history; by the use of the neoliberal discourses of responsibility and autonomy; by minimising the importance of family disputes; and by means of negative portrayals of the role of law and lawyers in such cases. The article goes on to consider the impact of the legislation and concludes that it is the competent poor, the unacknowledged vulnerable and the unassertive who are most affected by the LASPO Act. Since women, collectively, are more likely than men to fall into these categories, the result is that women, in particular, who benefited historically from wider and easier access to justice, are those who are most disadvantaged by its curtailment