SIR JAMES MATHEW, an Irish judge at the turn of the 20th century, is said to have quipped that justice in England is open to all, “like the Ritz Hotel”. Some worry that it is going that way again. Until last year, even those who could not afford lawyers could seek redress in areas such as family law or housing disputes. No longer. Seeking to cut Britain’s budget deficit, the government has slashed legal aid. But in doing so, it has failed to reform the system.

Legal aid costs England and Wales around £2 billion ($3.2 billion) a year. That figure has remained steady for the past decade. It is expensive compared with other European countries, partly because of the system’s adversarial—rather than inquisitorial—nature, and partly because it has always been generous in the past. Now Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, is trying to lop £320m off the civil bill and £220m from the criminal side. Since April 2013 the areas covered by civil legal aid have been slashed. Means-testing has been tightened. Aid for prisoners has been restricted. Fees for criminal work are being trimmed. The system continues to function—and still looks better than most—but it is struggling in the age of austerity.

Some of Mr Grayling’s proposals have been stymied. This week the House of Lords scuppered plans to curtail judicial review, through which citizens can challenge the legality of government actions. Howls of outrage, protests and strikes by barristers, who say that the cuts will denigrate justice and gut their business, have persuaded the government to postpone some fee cuts until after next year’s election.

Where cuts have been made, they are being felt. The problems are particularly acute in family law. The government hoped that people would turn to cheaper out-of-court mediation for which money is still available. But the numbers using such services are down 40% compared with last year. Without legal aid many people are not getting advice from lawyers who might in the past have suggested mediation.

Instead more and more Britons are representing themselves (as “litigants in person”), often poorly. The proportion of family law cases in which neither party was represented grew from 17% to 29% between March 2011 and December 2013. Cases without lawyers take longer, pushing up costs, and the quality of justice suffers.

Defending themselves

Litigants in person struggle to make their cases properly. One barrister likened watching them to “the frustration a surgeon would feel watching somebody try to take out their own liver with a spoon”. Women are cross-examined by abusive former partners. People cannot afford experts’ fees or services, so critical evidence, such as paternity tests, may be missing. More people are relying on limited free services. The Bar Pro Bono Unit saw applications increase by almost 50% in the year to March 2014. On October 23rd the government announced a paltry £2m in funding for legal advice, a helpline and online information for litigants in person.

Meanwhile, fees introduced elsewhere are limiting access to other kinds of justice. Bringing complaints about discrimination or unfair dismissal against employers now costs £1,200. The number of cases brought has dropped 70% since last year. But the rate of success has not changed, suggesting the fall is not simply down to a decline in weak claims. Even the Confederation of British Industry, the voice of big business, has questioned the charges.

The impact of cuts to criminal legal aid is harder to quantify. Those charged with crimes are still defended. But in the long term, some barristers caution, such cuts will make the criminal bar in its current form unsustainable.

Cuts to legal aid and to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) mean the system is getting creakier. A quarter of lawyers at the CPS lost their jobs between 2010 and 2013. Meanwhile its spending on overtime has more than quadrupled to £4.6m since 2009. Defence lawyers say it regularly fails to produce evidence, causing costly delays. One barrister who prosecutes and defends criminal cases in London describes the CPS there as being “in meltdown”.

Meanwhile, in the first quarter of 2013 the rate of delays in crown-court trials caused by the prison escort service failing to deliver defendants on time was up by 75% compared with 2012. Problems with technology and court rooms caused as many trials to be delayed in the first quarter of 2013 as in all of 2012.

Austerity could have prompted innovation. For all its excellence, the system relies too much on justice secured in court by lawyers. More legal work could be done online, reckons Roger Smith, a legal-aid expert who has studied other countries’ legal systems, easing the pressure on courts. The Dutch legal-aid board has developed an interactive website that offers information and advice to discourage people from going to court. In New South Wales in Australia a website is backed up by a telephone hotline and face-to-face advice.

More work could be removed from the courts, too. The government says those challenging motoring convictions could do so in town halls before magistrates. Sir James Munby, president of the family division of the High Court, asked whether registrars could handle “no-fault” divorces, instead of judges. If cuts continue—as seems likely—reform is necessary. That may mean less work for lawyers. It does not have to mean less justice.