In 1984 the Law Society Children Panel was set up to provide quality assurance of children’s representation in care proceedings. The tandem approach has developed into a world-recognised model of good practice. Solicitors became expert negotiators and advocates appearing at all levels of court, and mutual respect grew between solicitors and barristers.

The fixed fee regime imposed on care solicitors in 2007 fails to reward expertise, rewarding best those who do least. Children’s solicitors must be Panel members but for parents, membership qualification and experience are not pre-requisites, often leaving children’s lawyers to bear the full burden of cases. Panel membership is aging and diminishing. Fixed fees lead to an inevitable exodus of expertise, exacerbated by the Legal Services Commission’s failure to reward solicitors for hearing preparation, an iniquity embedded by the settlement of the Law Society’s judicial review.

The LSC published a harmonised advocacy scheme consultation in December 2008 which promised solicitors greater reward. If implemented as proposed, this would destroy the Children Panel and family advocacy, disproportionately rewarding simple work and grossly underpaying complex work. The Family Law Bar Association’s (FLBA) recent extensive survey, which echoes the ALC snapshot survey of 2007, highlights a potential devastating loss of the family bar.

Working together on a sound evidence base is key to good children’s legal practice. The FLBA, ALC, Resolution, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Law Society committees have worked with the LSC. The ALC has even devised an alternative to the Family Graduated Fee Scheme. The data upon which the proposals rely, particularly relating to solicitor advocacy, are heavily flawed, and the FLBA and Bar Council have provided an independent statistician to untangle the mess. Astonishingly, a week before the consultation ended, the LSC asked Ernst & Young to carry out research into the impact on advocacy services of their proposals.

Parliament’s Justice Committee is concerned and, with others, the ALC gave evidence highlighting the risks to families of proceeding without a firm evidence base. A long-term bad scheme based on poor evidence without knowledge of its impact could lead to the loss of the Children Panel at a time when media scrutiny of services for children could not be higher. Aging Panel members remember the injustices before the Children Act 1989 and the Children Panel, the deaths of Jasmine Beckford, Maria Colwell and others, and will continue to fight against their return.

Caroline Little, Co-chair, Association of Lawyers for Children