Costs lawyers could take on low-level judicial functions to help judges with costs, the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) has told the Civil Courts Structure Review.
The review, led by Lord Justice Briggs, is looking at the entire structure of the civil courts in England and Wales. It began in August, and is expected to produce an interim report by the end of the year.
The ACL said its members were ready and willing to become delegated judicial officers (DJOs), taking on some of more routine judicial functions. Under the proposal, DJOs would have authority to resolve live issues but would always be under judicial supervision, perhaps by a panel of regional costs judges, and subject to litigants’ rights of review by a judge. However, it warned that investment would be required to ensure robust selection, supervision and review of DJOs.
ACL chair Sue Nash says: “We are conscious of the fact that to utilise costs lawyers in this way may be considered a radical step but would venture to suggest it is no more radical than some of the other reforms being contemplated.
“It would, in our opinion be a step in the right direction to creating a fairer and more efficient costs environment. Indeed, costs lawyers’ experience in case management is such that we would be well placed take on a broader role as DJOs dealing with matters beyond costs.”
In its response to the review, the ACL says: “Our members are particularly interested in this proposal, as they see themselves as ideally suited to perform the more routine, simple functions currently performed by costs judges.
“Our members have different levels of qualification and experience in all aspects of the costs environment. Too often we hear reports of district judges who have no interest in costs, and that lack of interest follows through to the decisions made.
“Furthermore, costs lawyers have a breadth of experience across the wide range of areas in which our solicitor clients practice. Subject to training and supervision, there is no reason why suitably qualified costs lawyers could not be given general case management powers.”
