header-logo header-logo

Success for solicitors on legal aid bills

18 January 2021
Issue: 7917 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
Solicitors have won the right to have civil legal aid bills assessed by specialist judges, following legal action brought by the Law Society
The Lord Chancellor confirmed last week that solicitors can choose to have bills between £2,500 and £25,000 assessed by either the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) or specialist judges, while the LAA consults on the best way for legal aid costs to be assessed in future.

Law Society president David Greene said: ‘It is good news for solicitors and anyone needing legally aided advice that the Law Society’s decisive action has prompted the Lord Chancellor to rethink the way solicitors are paid for civil legal aid work that is so vital to preserving access to justice.

‘We brought this action because the LAA announced changes to the way legal aid costs were assessed without a credible consultation or evidence to support moving cost assessments from the courts into the LAA. Our concern was that the LAA may not have the expertise to assess complex costs―historically it has only assessed very low or pre-agreed legal aid bills―whereas cost judges routinely assess the reasonableness of solicitors’ claims for work on complex cases. 

‘Equally concerning, the LAA has a stake in the outcome of costs assessments―as payments come from its budget―and so it will not always be the appropriate arbiter, whereas a costs judge is in a position to make an impartial, expert assessment. We’re relieved the LAA has agreed to engage in a genuine consultation.’

The LAA announced the change in June, prompting the Law Society to take legal action. The Administrative Court has formally endorsed a settlement of the claim, under the terms of which the Lord Chancellor will imminently announce a consultation on the assessment of civil legal aid bills.

The Law Society said the consultation is expected to run during February 2020 leading to a decision in March or April.

Issue: 7917 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll