Public Funding

Solicitor-advocates may be appointed for cases beyond their competency because of a desire to keep costs low, a report commissioned by the Legal Services Board (“LSB”) has found. 

Belle Turner reports on the recent YBS seminar “All Change? Or not? For the Young Bar”.  

At this time of great change at the Bar there is some concern as to whether young barristers at a grassroots level are engaged with the potentially career-changing decisions that senior members of chambers may be taking on behalf of their members. There is no small irony that, as a young barrister in a set wishing to become a Legal Disciplinary Practice (“LDP”), for example, the senior members of chambers may profit considerably from the work of the juniors for many years before the juniors themselves benefit. There is a sense in many of the emails which I receive that this wasn’t what people signed up for. 

Plans to cut conditional fee agreements (“CFA”) success fees for libel cases by up to 90 per cent have been dropped owing to lack of Parliamentary time. 

The controversial plans, which were opposed by many claimant libel lawyers, would have capped the success fee chargeable in CFAs from a maximum 100 per cent to ten per cent. The reforms had previously failed to pass the committee stage in the House of Commons after four labour MPs joined opposition parties to vote it down. 

The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) list of the Bar’s top earners in publicly funded work contained several errors and was based on “unreliable” data, the Bar Council has said. 

Publication of the MoJ list, an annual event that prompts news stories on which barrister makes the most money from legal aid work, identified the top ten legal aid earners for 2008-09. However the Bar Council spotted several errors and sent out a briefing note, “Barristers’ Earnings—The Reality for Publicly Funded Practitioners” to clarify the issue. 

THE Bar Council, the Approved Regulator for barristers in England and Wales, has appointed Toby Craig as its first Head of Communications. 

Nick Green QC reflects on the issues that surround the implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007 

The main issues on the Bar Council agenda include several matters of enduring concern: legal aid fees (and the judicial review proceedings brought against the MoJ and LSC), the government’s decision to abolish the LSC and bring it into the MoJ as an executive agency, the implications of the Jackson Review of Costs, referral fees generally, and new business structures. I have continued to travel the country to speak at length to the Bar. So far I have visited about 50 chambers and given speeches to nearly 2,000 people. A very great deal of what I find myself doing is affected by the work being undertaken to implement the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). So, a few ongoing reflections. 

Many of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations will have a direct impact on the Bar’s way of life, warns Stuart Sime 

Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (“the Review”) was published on 14 January 2010. It will have profound effects on the conduct of litigation and the remuneration of lawyers. Without doubt it is the most important report in the area of civil law since Lord Woolf’s report on Access to Justice in 1996. Like the best reports in recent years (Lord Neuberger’s report on Entry to the Bar, 2007, is another example), Sir Rupert recognises that systemic problems cannot be cured by single big point remedies. 

The Ministry of Justice is refusing Bar Council requests to extend the deadline for “inadequate and unfair” consultations on Very High Cost Cases (“VHCCs”) and advocates’ graduated fees despite threats of judicial review. 

Solicitors acting for the Bar Council have now written, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Claims, to the Legal Aid Minister, Lord Bach, and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”), Sir Bill Callaghan, in order to advance proceedings for judicial review. 

MPs have warned legal aid reforms are threatening the future of the junior Bar, in a damning report on the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”). 

The Committee of Public Accounts (“PAC”) report into legal aid procurement, published in February, criticised the LSC for having “lax” financial controls and management information which, for example, led it to overpay solicitors by £25 million in 2008-09 resulting in it having its accounts qualified. It attacked the LSC over its “poor financial management” and lack of knowledge about the costs and profitability of legal aid law firms. 

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group is seeking nominations for the 2010 Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Awards (“LALYs”). The ten award categories include legal aid barrister (sponsored by the Bar Council) and outstanding achievement (sponsored by Manches). The closing date for nominations is 12 April and the award ceremony will be held on 26 May in London. Forms are available at www.lapg.co.uk/legalaidlawyer.cfm