The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is set to become law after Labour lost a vote on an amendment to the bill by the narrowest possible margin.
The government has been defeated a total of 14 times on the legislation in the upper House, the largest number for any bill introduced by this administration.
There were 11 defeats at
which were subsequently overturned by the House of Commons.
But peers inflicted a further three defeats on Monday 23 April, when peers voted to reinstate amendments that MPs had rejected.
On Wednesday 25 April 2012, opposition spokesman and former Attorney General Baroness Scotland once again moved an amendment concerning access to legal aid for victims of domestic violence, arguing that the government's proposals did not go far enough to protect victims.
She called for time limits for evidence surrounding domestic violence cases to be removed from the bill, arguing that they would make it more difficult for victims to receive funding.
She received support from the Bishop of Chichester, who said he feared that "people will die as a result" of the bill's provisions in this area.
Justice Minister Lord McNally rejected the notion that "the passing of this bill" will cut women off from legal aid, saying that funding was available for victims of domestic violence and the disputed matter affected legal aid "for private family matters".
The government had announced amendments broadening the definition of domestic violence for legal aid purposes to include emotional and psychological harm, not just physical abuse.
Women admitted to a refuge, those receiving social services support, and any victim whose partner or ex-partner has a caution for violence against them will also be entitled to claim legal aid.
On Monday, peers had backed the Labour amendment, despite concessions by ministers, but the Commons overturned the amendment once again the following day.
Lord McNally said that this was "a government that has listened, a government that has extended the criteria... the Commons has considered this and the Commons was right".
A division on the amendment resulted in a tie of 238 votes to 238, which meant the amendment was defeated because there was no majority in favour.
Earlier, crossbench peer Lord Pannick attacked what he called an "absence of scrutiny" in the Commons and the "unsatisfactory manner" in which the government had proceeded, when returning to his amendment inserting a requirement in the bill for individuals to have access to legal aid which meets their needs.
Peers backed Lord Pannick on Monday but MPs had rejected the amendment.
Lord Pannick did not take the matter further but, referring to the coalition's plans for Lords reform, said that if he were a member of an 80% elected House he would have pushed his amendment.
He described the bill as "bad" but shadow justice minister Lord Bach went further, saying that the bill's provisions on social welfare law "are not just bad, they are wicked".
Lord McNally hit back, arguing that "the big betrayal of the poorest in our society would be to lose control of our economy" and that public spending cuts were needed.
Peers were more conciliatory in showing appreciation for a government concession on legal aid for suffers of mesothelioma, and asbestos-related cancer.
On Tuesday, Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly told MPs that sufferers of industrial diseases will initially be exempt from the government's reforms to no-win, no-fee legal claims.
The minister said there would be a review of how the reforms work before a decision was taken on whether to make the sufferers of mesathelioma pay part of their compensation to their solicitors.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury said he was grateful to Lord McNally, saying "he has listened carefully all the way through" and had taken peers' views back to the government.
which makes wide-ranging changes to legal aid, the cost of litigation, and sentencing guidelines, now awaits