It was interesting to read Carolyn Regan on the subject of achieving the best value for taxpayers’ money as far as the Legal Services Commission is concerned (see [2009] Gazette, 18 June, 13). It is depressing that this argument only ever seems to apply to the fees of high-street solicitors who represent ordinary people. Somehow, others who make a very good living from the legal aid fund avoid the level of scrutiny and red tape that ordinary practitioners face on a daily basis.

Those of us who act for children and their families in care proceedings deal with the exorbitant fees that can be claimed by expert witnesses in those matters. Fees charged at a rate of up to £300 an hour are not unusual, nor are daily rates to attend court of £1,000 or more and cancellation fees of similar amounts if attendance at court to give evidence is not required.

Many of the experts instructed are NHS consultants, who already receive significant salaries and benefits which are far greater than legal aid solicitors could ever realise. The medico-legal work that these experts undertake is an adjunct to their existing professional career. It is also not unusual for experts instructed in care cases then to provide evidence in any related criminal proceedings, for which they would receive additional fees.

While the LSC is doing something to address the commissioning of expert evidence, the issue of fees remains live – and the cottage industry that has grown up for individual experts is nothing short of a public scandal.

There are no transparent, universally agreed standards for determining who is an expert or for their working methods. There is no charging structure, apart from what the expert dictates is their fee. Finally, and most appallingly, the LSC is unable to say exactly how much experts cost as they never breakdown the data they collate. This occurs despite practitioners having to provide detailed data in each bill sent to the LSC.

Experts cost a lot of money – several million pounds a year – so the LSC should get to grips with those fees as a matter of urgency. Bearing down on solicitors with yet another proposal which they have been told is dangerous is concerning; releasing money from experts to pay for representation would be an interesting start to rebalancing where and how the money should be spent.

Charlotte Collier, Atkins Hope, Croydon