header-logo header-logo

A fee cut too far?

19 March 2009 / Lucy Theis KC
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail

The government should heed the warnings of those who work at the sharp end of the family justice system, says Lucy Theis QC

The Family Law Bar Association (FLBA), like many other organisations working in the family justice system, has real concerns about the government’s plans to overhaul publicly funded fees in the family cases (see Family Legal Aid Funding from 2010: A Consultation).

The FLBA, which represents the interests of specialist family barristers and has over 2,300 members nationally, has advocated for many years the principle of equal payment for equal work—whoever undertakes the advocacy.

We proposed an integrated approach to the Family Graduated Fee Scheme (FGFS) in the late 1990s, which was rejected by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). However, the current FGFS was carefully crafted, after lengthy consultation, and produced a reasonable and durable business model for the remuneration of advocacy services. It has graduation within its structure to properly remunerate the complexity of the case.

Public fund mismanagement Its proposed successor, the Family Advocacy Scheme (FAS), has

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll