Fortunately, they are all lousy shots

Your proposition appear to be that lawyers who do legal aid family work are protesting about the changes to legal aid because the loss of fee income from legal aid will lead to practices becoming unsustainable and lawyers going out of business. That the principled arguments are just a cover for concerns about money.

My comment addresses why, in the medium term, the assertion that “it turns out the tax payers monies was the only reason they were able to stay in business…etc” is, in my view, incorrect. As that is your assertion, and my comment provides a number of reasons why your assertion may be refuted, it isn’t a straw-man argument. Perhaps I just haven’t made it clear enough, but I wanted to avoid repeating the same conclusions over and over.

As for the reference to Atkin lecture. I don’t entirely see your argument. Certainly I don’t think anyone would dispute that crime, family and PI are generally the least well regarded practice areas to work in—not least as they don’t pay as well as say, commercial or chancery work. But you may need to spell out what point you are trying to make, because it isn’t immediately evident.

Hopefully.