header-logo header-logo

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

A fee cut too far?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll