header-logo header-logo

08 September 2020
Issue: 7901 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Costs assessment dispute escalates

A judicial review has been lodged against the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) for its decision to move legal aid cost assessments in-house

The Law Society, which launched the case last week, claims the LAA failed to consult the representative bodies, and the LAA may not have enough qualified staff and resources in-house to manage the change. It points to a potential conflict of interest where the LAA is assessing larger bills as it is also the paying party, and argues the costs appeals process is not properly independent as it is controlled by the LAA which also appoints and pays for independent costs assessors.

Law Society president Simon Davis said: ‘Cost assessments are vital in ensuring that when legal aid practitioners send a bill it is carefully scrutinised and they are properly paid for their work.

‘For years, legal aid cost assessments over the value of £2,500 have been conducted by the courts and bills under £2,500 have been assessed by the LAA―a system which has worked well for practitioners and clients alike. Calculating cost assessments can be a complicated process which requires a level of skill and experience, and sufficient time.’

The LAA announced in June that it would bring all assessments in-house from 17 August, on the basis this would speed up the process as claims would no longer need to go before the courts, resulting in faster payments for firms already struggling with cash flow issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. It said it had consulted with ‘representative bodies’ on amendments to the cost assessment guidance.

Davis said the proceedings have been issued on ‘a protective basis’ and invited the LAA to discuss the issue.

The Ministry of Justice was unable to comment while legal proceedings were ongoing.

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll