Litigation: price increases have been strongly opposed across the legal profession

The dramatic hike in civil court fees introduced in January is a 'stealth tax' that is deterring clients from litigating and is also hitting lawyers working under conditional fee arrangements (CFAs), solicitors said this week.


The warning came as a government response to last year's consultation on the fee increases, released last week, revealed the strength of opposition to the changes among lawyers, the judiciary, user groups and the legal professional bodies.


Myles Hicky, senior partner at Dowse & Co in London, said the 'penal' rise in the cost of detailed assessments from £250 to £600 was affecting lawyers being paid under CFAs.


He said: 'Lawyers are having to take the hit of the incredible rise in the cost of detailed assessments - well over the level of inflation - which is designed to get practitioners to avoid troubling the courts at all with the assessment of costs. It is adding to the burden of running this type of work. There will be a lot of shaving of costs, with people not getting paid at the appropriate rate for the work they have done.'


Colin Ettinger, immediate past president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) said the hike in civil court fees was affecting cash flow for personal injury firms.


Allan Gore QC, his successor as APIL president, added: 'The increase has to be paid either by the client or the lawyer until the case is concluded. Neither is right as both have access to justice implications: the client should not have to pay out of his own pocket when he has been injured through no fault of his own, and solicitors will be more reluctant to take on risky cases.'


Respondents to the government's consultation had warned that the increases were a 'stealth tax' that would discourage people from using the courts, and would not lead to a rise in service level, the government response revealed.


Anthony Maton, executive committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said: 'It is right to call the fee increases a tax, because a lot of the time there is no alternative to the courts.


'Commercial clients will pay the increase in fees if they need to litigate. The fallout is at the lower end of the market, where clients cannot afford the fees. It is a disincentive for them. It means you can only afford to go to court if you are very wealthy or poor [and qualify for an exemption]. That is not access for all.'


A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said the increase in fees was necessary to recover the cost of court services. He said the fees were proportionate to the amounts sought.