Proposed fee uplift not enough to fix civil legal aid crisis, says CILEX

The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) proposed civil legal aid fee uplift is “insufficient to sustain the legal aid market” and will fail to encourage providers to take on legally aided work in housing and immigration, warns CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives).

While welcoming the uplift—from an hourly rate ranging from £45.95-£48.74 to £65.35-£69.30 (non-London/London)—as a significant step given current budgetary constraints, CILEX does not believe it will be enough to attract new lawyers into the sector or maintain existing levels of civil legal aid provision, especially amid growing demand.

In its response to the MoJ’s consultation Civil Legal Aid: Towards a Sustainable Future, CILEX highlights the “administrative burden” currently placed on providers, which discourages them from taking on more legal aid cases. It supports the proposed simplification of fee structures, stating that such reforms will “benefit practitioners” and help “relieve some of the substantial pressure they face.”

CILEX also raises concerns about access to justice, warning that the decreasing number of legal aid providers is affecting recruitment and the sustainability of the profession. Without further action, the pool of legal aid providers will continue to shrink, reducing access to essential legal services.

CILEX “cautiously agrees” with equalising minimum hourly rates for ‘controlled work’ (initial advice, assistance, and first-tier tribunal representation) and ‘licensed work’ (legal representation before a court), believing it could help reduce administrative time and costs. However, it urges that fee calculations consider the complexity of cases, administrative differences, and the expertise required for each type of work.

While supporting the harmonisation of fees for ‘routine letters out and telephone calls,’ CILEX opposes the proposed harmonisation of fees for ‘travelling and waiting time’ and ‘attendance at court, conference, or tribunal with Counsel.’ It argues that the complexity of cases varies significantly, and time spent traveling or waiting should not be equated with active legal representation at a hearing or tribunal.

Additionally, CILEX calls for the removal of limits on the number of controlled work matters that can be conducted remotely without in-person client attendance, arguing that practitioners should have the flexibility to use their professional judgment to determine the most effective way to provide legal aid services.

CILEX President Yanthé Richardson commented: “By acknowledging that there is a crisis in civil legal aid and proposing an uplift in fees, the government is taking a positive step towards reversing the decline in the sector. Unfortunately, as it stands these reforms will not be enough to increase the number of firms willing to take on legal aid work and to train the young people who will be the housing and immigration lawyers of the future. The simplification of fee structures will relieve some of the pressure on legal aid providers facing severe administrative burdens but further incentives will be needed if we are to ensure we have a sustainable legal aid sector that enables access to justice for all.”

Image credit:  © kanchanachitkhamma via Canva

Francesca Kaye