header-logo header-logo

09 July 2025
Issue: 8124 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Immigration & asylum , Housing
printer mail-detail

Legal aid boost for housing & immigration practitioners

A proposed £20m boost for housing and immigration legal aid practitioners has been confirmed

The investment will increase overall spend by 24% on housing legal aid and by 30% on immigration and asylum legal aid, and is the first real-terms fees rise for 30 years.

According to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), it means the fixed fee for housing work will increase by 42% from £157 to £223 and the fixed fee for asylum legal help will increase by 35% from £413 to £559.

The MoJ said the investment will be implemented ‘as soon as operationally possible’.

However, Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Our research has found that this work is simply not profitable for practitioners at present, indeed a 95% increase is needed to restore fees to 1996 levels.’

Both Atkinson and Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, urged the government to create an independent fee review body for legal aid.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll