header-logo header-logo

20 April 2015
Issue: 7649 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No new guideline hourly rates

The Master of the Rolls has decided to freeze the guideline hourly rates (GHRs), due to the poor response to its call for evidence. 

Lord Dyson initially said in July that he had no “evidential base” on which to make any changes to the GHRs, but would hold further discussions with the Law Society and government. 

Last week, he announced that these discussions had made no “material change” to the position. The GHRs will therefore remain at their current rates, which were set in 2010.

GHRs help judges assess costs by providing guidelines for the recoverable hourly rate for different grades of fee earner in different regions of England and Wales.

Lord Dyson said: “I am conscious of a number of trends in the legal services market and other factors that are rendering GHRs less and less relevant.” These include advances in technology and business practices; the “ever-increasing sub-specialisation of the law which is seeing the market increasingly dictate rates in some fields (particularly commercial law)”; “the judiciary’s use of proportionality as a driving principle in assessing costs”; and greater familiarity with costs budgeting among judiciary and practitioners alike.

He called for greater use of fixed costs in litigation.

Sue Nash, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says: “While any decision which gives certainty is to be welcomed, it is unfortunate that the costs committee was unable to fulfill its brief.  

“This was a golden opportunity for the legal profession to help shape the debate about the value of legal services but the outcome was made inevitable given the limited responses to the consultation coupled with the lack of resources afforded to the committee. It is difficult to see what other decision the Master of the Rolls could have taken in the circumstances.

“What will be interesting to see now is whether this will give added impetus to the increasingly wide variety of alternative fee and billing arrangements being entered between solicitors and their clients.”

 

Issue: 7649 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll