header-logo header-logo

22 October 2009
Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Cuts too high for family legal aid?

Family lawyers have voiced concern at a new “uneconomic” fixed fee structure for family legal aid work.

The government published the long-anticipated results of its consultation, Family Legal Aid Funding from 2010, this week, setting out the rates for fixed fees that will replace hourly rates for family legal aid work in October 2010.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Services Commission first consulted on the proposals in December 2008.

The figures represent a 40% cut to hourly rates that have already remained static for the last ten years, according to family lawyers association Resolution.

“Faced with this uneconomic scenario there is a very real danger that firms will walk away from legal aid work, further undermining access to justice,” said David Emmerson, chair of Resolution’s legal aid committee.

“We strongly urge the government to reconsider the fees for private law cases before they come into effect in October 2010.”

Barristers and solicitor advocates will be paid equally under the scheme.

Lawyers are concerned that family practitioners will desert legal aid, leaving clients forced to travel long distances to find representation.

Legal Aid Practitioners Group committee member and family lawyer, Wendy Hewstone said: "We are very worried about cases where there is a dispute over where the child lives, about contact to children or issues such as taking children abroad permanently.

“The fees for representation on financial disputes when people are divorcing are especially low. Our concern is that there will be fewer firms doing family work as a result and those that do will struggle to give a good service especially against private paying opponents and government bodies.”

Resolution estimates that for a simple child contact case taking around 14 hours a legal aid firm would currently receive £960 on the basis of the hourly rate. The new fixed fee would be £471—a cut of more than 50%.

A legal aid firm managing a straightforward divorce finance case which goes to full hearing would be paid £2,106 at present, but £1,299 under the new fixed fee rate.

However, the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC) broadly welcomed the proposals, noting that they had been “revised following in particular extensive input from the leading practitioner groups and intervention by the President of the Family Division”.

ALC co-chair, Piers Pressdee, said: “The priority for family legal aid must be child protection. We welcome the government’s recognition of that priority and reality, together with the significant improvements to the scheme that have now been made.

"While we still have concerns about some elements of it, the scheme now proposed is immeasurably better, fairer and more practice-reflective than that originally devised.

"That shows the benefits of collaborative working within the family justice system.”

 

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll