header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2009 / Lucy Theis KC
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail

A fee cut too far?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll