LOST your job and it wasn't your fault?

Then call our Freephone number and apply to our specialist lawyers for a loan.

It sounds like an advert after Jeremy Kyle is finished, but it's what is being put forward in all seriousness as a new way of paying for legal advice.

And it's not emerged between glasses of claret from a Home Counties MP - this has come from within the legal profession itself.

A committee of the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that some types of case perhaps don't need to have public funding at all, as the person who has just lost their job - or is facing eviction, or is being taken to court over an unpaid debt - could always enter into a loan agreement with their lawyer about how their fees will be met.

It goes with the territory that lawyers tend to meet clients when they are likely to be upset, embarrassed, or at a low ebb financially - that tends to be when they are most in need of sound legal advice.

It's not the best time, however, for clients to take long-term financial decisions.

The proposal that unfair dismissal be removed from the scope of legal aid funding is particularly baffling.

Other areas, such as debt, are relatively straightforward and don't tend to take up a lot of court time.

However, few unfair dismissal cases are clear-cut, and those which are would not tend to qualify for legal aid under the present system anyway.

If you've been caught with your hand in the till, or slept in for the 10th time, no lawyer will be able to help you.

In fact, "unfair dismissal" is complete misnomer - because to win damages, you are going to have to do a lot more than show you have been treated unfairly.

The law here is really complex. You can be discriminated against before you even start in a job, but won't be unfairly dismissed if you are sacked for no reason after 23 months; you can "win" a dismissal case but be awarded zero damages; you can be constructively dismissed but fairly dismissed, and you can sue a company you never worked for because you should have transferred to them, but didn't.

That is why employment cases take up a lot of time, and why employers have lawyers giving them advice. Often very good ones!

Since June 2013, anyone who wants to make a a dismissal claim to the Employment Tribunal has to pay £1200 before a hearing takes place.

The employer pays nothing, and there is no guarantee that the money will be reimbursed at the end of case.

The median tribunal award, according to the latest figures, is £5013.

So the £1200 upfront cost amounts to betting £12 to win £50.

These fees were introduced under the guise of austerity but also to rid the tribunal of "timewaster" cases. The number of claims is down 70 per cent in Scotland.

That can only be great news for the employer who wants to get rid of people without observing basic legal safeguards - for the rest of society, it's questionable what has been achieved.

Employment cases also differ from other civil cases in that the winner doesn't have his or her legal bill paid by the loser.

Take a case of someone whose wages haven't been paid. A tribunal orders the wages to be reinstated (usually months later) but the legal bill then has to be met from these wages which the employee's efforts had earned in the first place.

That's the current system. Under the reforms proposed, imagine a lawyer has "loaned" (i.e. gambled) his or her firm's money for the fees to the client, perhaps even staked the hearing fee of £1200 as well, and wins the case. Guess what happens if the employer doesn't pay and goes bust?

If the committee's aim was to contribute to a system where only employers will have lawyers representing them, then their proposals are absolutely fine.

Stephen Smith is a senior solicitor at The Glasgow Law Practice