Lowering guideline hourly rates (GHRs) is not the best way to contain litigation costs, according to a senior litigation lawyer.
The Master of the Rolls is expected to announce new rates this summer. They have not been reviewed since 2010.
However, Richard Langley, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Bircham Dyson Bell, writes in NLJ this week that a better approach would be to simplify procedures for determining costs.
Langley, a committee member of the LSLA, says: “Since there can be little doubt that the cost to law firms of providing legal services will generally have increased since 2010, it follows that any reductions in the GHRs must be the product of a judicial policy objective to reduce the costs of litigation.”
The Jackson review said little about GHRs, he points out, and a “procedure-light regime” for litigants could be preferable to the “blunt tool” of judge-set rates.
