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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

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