It's a year since I got my author copies of Lawyers for the Poor: almost as big an event as Halloween in this household...

In this thread, I will outline the book, and why legal advice mattered then & matters now. Book info: https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526136053/ 

Free legal advice had been on my mind since 1999, when I began volunteering at @ToynbeeHall as their librarian/archivist. It was (still is) a major area of activity for the charity. It intrigued me because the pro bono lawyers were the other people around at TH in the evenings

And they were busy, with people queuing up for hours to see them for advice and assistance with a range of matters. By talking to FLC colleagues, I gradually found out a bit more about the world of trying to find advice when you don't readily have access to people who know stuff

Or, rather, the 'right' stuff for getting a landlord to sort repairs out, deal with a dispute with relatives, get bailiffs off your doorstep, get help with sorting out a visa, get the right support to meet social care needs etc etc.

These are the situations and places where people can 'rub' up against the state, private companies, more powerful individuals/groups, as their rights are not upheld/they are mistreated. Listening doesn't always happen, neither are appeal routes always clear & accessible

Enter attempts to redress this balance from the 1890s. There had been 'poor man's lawyers' before this, as well as practices such as legal letter writing (see Carolyn Steedman), going to the London police/magistrates courts (see @DrewDGray's work), whilst there is a

Considerable volume of work on the discretion within the Poor Law system, such as @eh140, Samantha Shave, Steven King. The emergence of tort law - see Julia Moses' work - also reflects the need to make right the impact of harms & injuries in the modern city/workplace

The starting point for me was Gen William Booth of the Salvation Army, who called for a Poor Man's Tribune in his 1891 In Darkest England: https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:3293831. He argued that people suffered for not knowing how to tackle their problems/who to go to

The Salvation Army would provide legal services for the people they worked with, but Frank Tillyard, a barrister living at Mansfield House Uni Settlement, read In Darkest England & decided to give an evening or so a week for people to come to him for advice (for free)

Tillyard's model spread through the settlement house movement, which - esp in London - had many men living there who were starting out in careers in the law, and were happy to use their skills in this way.

Yet it was also caught up within the emergence of new ideas about social work - Tillyard moved to Sheffield and then Birmingham, where he was heavily involved in neighbourhood guild (Shef) and the new uni settlement in Birmingham (also COPAC & other activities).

He was a lecturer in law at the Uni of Birm, but also worked on their new social work diploma ca. 1908 or so - he had been writing books on law for [voluntary] social workers, then taught law for social workers, & arranged placements via the settlement house

... And thereby reminds us of women's exclusion from the legal profession prior to 1919. The social workers here were predominantly women... and they needed to know the law in order to navigate the increasing social legislation, to support their clients...

In addition to campaigns for women to be admitted to the legal profession (see @1919lawpioneers & @First100years for more!), feminist activists had their own 'Poor Woman's Lawyer' initiatives to ensure that women could get legal advice and support *from women*

Here's a free (for the next 48 people) link here to @SophieRowland93 & I's @womenshistrev article on this: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/HFXHPX84JKYZHGQBT8VB/full?target=10.1080/09612025.2020.1803544, looking at the Women's Trade Union League, Women's Industrial Council & YWCA

It was also not just lawyers in residence at settlement houses who were concerned about this. The NCSS were particularly concerned about access to advice in the interwar period, so that people knew their rights. In addition to working on what would be the Citizens Advice Bureaux

They were also broadcasting about rights on BBC radio, with Richard Clements, their W Midlands chief advisory officer, giving 12 b'casts on 'Question Time for the Unemployed'. Prof John Hilton also broadcast about rights & public services, as well as writing in the national press

His wartime broadcasts & News of the World articles led to said paper setting up the John Hilton Advice Bureau in 1942. Other big national newspapers ran advice bureaux 1940s-1970s, each giving around 100K people advice per year. All free, too!

Access to legal advice also mattered for the trade unions. It was not just about legal defence in strikes/campaigns: legal services were key to helping members get entitlements to compensation for industrial injuries, esp before 1948. Individual unions offered legal schemes as

part of their mutual offer, and the TUC would be veerrrryyy interested indeed in the formation of the Legal Aid & Advice Act 1949, partly to make sure union members (with their union legal cover) were not excl from it, & to try to be a voice for working people in decisions about

means-testing applicants for legal aid post-1949. Access to advice - legal or otherwise - had occupied the minds of both Labour & the Conservatives throughout the interwar period, from using it as a means of winning over voters in the 1920s & 1930s

Post-1949, it was for both a way of thinking about how people engaged with the state: Cons abt the state impingeing on rights & freedoms, Lab engaging with expanding legal services. In the late 1960s, & interest in US Neighbourhood Law Centers grew, both Lab & Con legal groups

Published major reports on what accessible legal services could look like - Justice for All and Rough Justice (respectively). These led to reforms of legal aid in e1970s, but also part of the context of est of Neighbourhood Law Centres here, first being North Kensington

The Legal Aid & Advice Act 1949 had - after pressure in interwar period & Rushcliffe Rep in 1944 - introduced a scheme in which lawyers could be refunded for legal aid work. BUT it took years to be fully implemented both in advice & the county courts - latter being where most

people would need support! Local govt being able to offer consumer advice from later 1950s also opened up possibilities for advising people - as did Urban Aid. Advice services (legal or otherwise) grew, through CAB, NLCs, community groups

They grew partly because groups had a framework/funding to pull activities together, but also to deal with new/changing needs around engaging with the state, recognising the needs of marginalised groups of all kinds, and trying to value those needs

Funding remained a challenge, be it through the intended/unintended outcomes of the Poll Tax, other cuts to local authority spending etc. It remains a challenge.

So: why does legal advice matter? It matters because it helps people to deal with their problems. It can clarify things and offer a way forward. It can make institutions rethink how they go about things. It can take the stress out of things. We all have to follow the law so

it follows we should all be able to access guidance on it. If we can't pay, voluntary action is one way, but state subsidisation (of one kind or another) can help to make it more widely available. It's a good use of funds because it can help make public services run more smoothly

And reduce poverty and inequality. And it's not just me saying that: see what the World Bank have to say about it: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/592901569218028553/pdf/A-Tool-for-Justice-The-Cost-Benefit-Analysis-of-Legal-Aid.pdf

So: that's enough from me - hopefully this has given you a taster of Lawyers for the Poor and finding out more about legal aid generally! If you don't already follow them, there are some fab legal aid/pro bono orgs on here, such as @LawCentres /END!