header-logo header-logo

12 March 2009
Issue: 7360 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession , Family
printer mail-detail

Family barristers at break point

Pay cuts forcing family barristers to desert legal aid work

Family barristers are struggling with complex caseloads, disruptive patterns of work, and pay cuts, according to a report published last week.

Dr Debora Price and Anne Laybourne of King’s College London examined more than 5,000 cases undertaken by more than 1,600 barristers in one week in October last year for their study, The Work of the Family Bar. The report found a quarter of family barristers earned less than £44,000, and half less than £66,000 a year. Almost all family barristers supplemented their legal aid work with privately paid income. Dr Price said: “The work of the family Bar bears a heavy responsibility—the consequences of failure in advocating a client’s case are severe, and include the risk of children being returned to perpetrators of child abuse, the removal of a child from home and the loss of parental rights, domestic violence and homelessness.
“We found that legal aid pay for family barristers lags far behind private client rates and below the rates paid by local authorities. If further cuts in legal aid rates are imposed then there is evidence that this will spread to cases involving serious child abuse too.”

Desmond Browne QC, chairman of the Bar Council, says: “This compelling report provides hard evidence that government policies are driving skilled advocates out of the family justice system, leaving the most vulnerable in society exposed to miscarriages of family justice. The Bar Council is acutely aware of the deep commitment of family barristers, many of whom are now working to breaking point, as this research shows. It is especially regrettable that barristers are effectively penalised for doing legally aided family work, rather than privately paying work, and that this is hitting women and black and minority ethnic advocates hardest of all.”

The Legal Services Commission announced cuts to the family graduated fee scheme in February, and is proposing further cuts which will see payments cut by up to 55%, according to the Bar Council.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll