I became a reviewer for Advocate, then the Bar Pro Bono Unit, within days of the advent of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Earlier in my career in 2002, Martin Pointer KC and I had launched a full-scale assault on Holman J’s ground-breaking decision in A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees) [2001] 1 FLR 377, which had introduced an early iteration of LASPO through the back door of section 22 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). The assault failed. We were rebuffed on the beachhead by Charles J in G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs) [2002] EWHC 306 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 71, who dismissed our erudite expedition into the history of alimentary provision and the common law agency of necessity with one sweep of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970’s new broom. From then on, or so it seemed to me, provision for legal fees within maintenance pending suit applications became ten a penny. The advent of LASPO appeared only to herald, with the sweeping changes to MCA 1973, s 24A, a new era of interim capital provision through orders for sale of real property, albeit limited to legal fees.

Since 2013, the Bar Pro Bono Unit has undergone change, including, of course, to its name. In 2018, the unit became Advocate (to rhyme with ‘donate’), followed by an explanatory ‘The pro bono charity of the Bar’. But that cosmetic change is nothing in comparison to the explosion in size and work. In 2013, there were four caseworkers. There are now 24. There were fewer than a hundred barrister reviewers. There are now 199 and, if their experience reflects mine, the 199 are all dealing with many more files. Like all organisations, Advocate had to face the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic – until 2020, old-fashioned buff files would be sent down to the reviewers’ chambers. The way in which the digital changes were orchestrated on a shoe-string budget has been frankly miraculous.

In the field of financial remedies, records are relatively sparse but they show what one would expect. In 2016, there were 180 applications. In 2022, there were 325. Advocate has removed the requirement to apply by a referral agency (Citizens Advice Bureau, law centre or solicitor). This means Advocate has become more like a front-line agency and with that the caseworker role has evolved, incorporating collation of documents from third parties, providing courts with dates to avoid and often arranging mental health services for applicants.

The applicants who seek help from Advocate are usually vulnerable and impoverished. On no more than two occasions, I have been able to advise applicants that they should seek legal help in unlocking resources either though LASPO or by accessing other illiquid resources. Those who seek help from Advocate are usually in impossible situations with few or no resources. The world of LASPO is a very far cry from Advocate’s doors.