header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 November 2013 / Mr Justice Foskett
Issue: 7582 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

The going rate

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
165800417

Foskett J sets the record straight over the survey into guideline hourly rates
A survey of law firms gets underway today (1 November) to help set new guideline hourly rates (or GHR) for solicitors, legal executives and other fee-earners. Here, Mr Justice Foskett, who chairs the committee responsible for that work, answers some pertinent questions.

 

Why do we need GHRs?

The guideline hourly rates were originally developed to help judges making summary assessments of costs in civil litigation and thus deciding what solicitors and other legal fee earners should be paid by the losing side for their work on a case. However, they have a wider influence than that and are a common reference point for practitioners, clients and the judiciary. They are set formally by the Master of the Rolls.

Why are new GHRs required?

They were last updated in 2010 and the underlying evidence for the 2010 rates was itself out-dated. Successive Masters of the Rolls did not want to increase the rates based simply on inflation. They have

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
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll