header-logo header-logo

26 March 2025
Issue: 8110 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Fees
printer mail-detail

Proposed boost to civil legal aid fees

Lawyers have welcomed a proposal to raise civil legal aid fees by 10%-42% but called for more.

The Ministry of Justice’s consultation, ‘Civil legal aid: towards a sustainable future’, closed last week. The £20m boost would be the first increase in civil legal aid in 30 years, despite a 96.8% rise in the consumer price index in that time.

The Bar Council’s response emphasises the technical complexity of housing and immigration law, and increased demands on practitioners arising from client vulnerability. It calls for counsel to be paid hourly rates rather than a fixed fee and for travel and waiting time, and highlights the contrast between the proposed fees and the rates the government pays when it instructs civil barristers in non-legal aid work.

It states: ‘It is not clear how the government paying half the rate for doing legal aid work than it does for doing non-legal aid work, encourages “the best and brightest” to do legal aid work.’

Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘A significantly greater uplift is required to genuinely create sustainability and adequately address the complexity of immigration and housing work. 

‘We’re calling for regular independent fee reviews to ensure parity with broader market rates to attract and retain talented legal professionals into this vital work. This is a critical area where we believe the government should spend now to save future costs. 

‘Evidence shows that early legal support prevents problems escalating with increased costs to the taxpayer.’

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Raising the rates is welcome, however the government admits this would still leave a quarter of housing legal aid providers unable to help people who desperately need advice.’ Atkinson said a 95% rise would be needed to restore legal aid fees to the 1996 levels in real terms. 

Issue: 8110 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Fees
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll