Rates: revised proposals an improvement, but new regional fee scheme causes concern




Practitioners have given a cautious welcome to the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) revised proposals for family legal aid fees, but cast doubt on whether the rates are sufficient to maintain the supplier base.



The LSC last week published amended proposals for consultation on the new graduated fee schemes for public law care proceedings and private 'family help'.



In public law cases, advocacy has been removed from the fixed-fee scheme for solicitors and will continue to be paid by hourly rates, the exceptional case threshold has been reduced, and fees for cases involving more than one child are being revised.



The changes for private law cases include a reduction in the exceptional case threshold, tailoring the fees around different types of work and clients, a distinction between fees for children and finance cases, and the maintenance of the panel uplift for cases other than those paid on standard fees.



The LSC has now proposed regional fees, splitting the country into four geographic areas - southern, midlands, northern and Wales. It also launched its strategy for family legal aid, setting out its priorities over the next five years.



The documents are intended to meet concerns about the LSC's original proposals, which were roundly condemned by family lawyers.



Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said the commission had taken on board some concerns, but remained sceptical about whether fixed fees are appropriate and whether the rates will be sufficient to ensure an adequate supplier base.



Christina Blacklaws, chairwoman of the Law Society's family law committee, said she did not understand how the regional differentials had been arrived at. 'Why will a solicitor practising in Cornwall, for some types of cases, receive almost double that of a colleague working in central Manchester or Leeds?'



LSC chief executive Carolyn Regan said: 'The new fees move away from paying hourly rates and towards paying for outputs. They will help providers to adjust the way they work in anticipation of the next step of best-value tendering.'



Catherine Baksi