Consultation on reforms of Solicitors Act costs provisions to be published soon too
The Bar Council has accepted that guideline hourly rates (GHRs) will be introduced for barristers but they will be in the form of bands rather than specific figures, a leading costs silk has revealed.
It has also emerged that publication of a consultation on reform of the costs provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974 should happen by the end of the year.
GHR for barristers were recommended in the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) 2023 costs review, headed by Lord Justice Birss.
Speaking at the recent Costs Law Reports conference in London, Nick Bacon KC of 4 New Square said the Bar was “pretty reluctant” about them “but we’ve got through that”.
He praised an “excellent paper” produced by Dr Mark Friston, “which we circulated to the troops and we are now in a world where the Bar is accepting that this will happen”. He added: The MR [Master of the Rolls] has been very helpful making it very clear this is going to happen.”
The next issue was determining the rates. The current plan is to have categories based on years of call – 0-3, 3-7, 7-14, 14 and above and KC – and then split them simply between commercial and civil work. Within civil work, there will be a sub-category for clinical negligence and personal injury.
The figures will be a band, rather than an actual figure, with “lots of guidance which will help inform the judge as to how that should be applied”.
Mr Bacon continued that regular reviews were seen as vital, especially in personal injury, where barristers’ income depended on fees recovered from the opponent, whereas for commercial barristers recovery was “a contribution towards their clients’ legal spend”.
Mr Bacon, who sits on the CJC committee dealing with GHRs, said it had also been talking about a new London 1a band for “extremely complex, high-value litigation” He acknowledged that this definition was “not great” and that there were “very much” two sides to the argument.
Meanwhile, the committee was collecting data from High Court, circuit, district and costs judges about the rates claimed and allowed in detailed assessments, payments on account applications and summary assessments, along with a short description of the nature of the work. This exercise should conclude in early 2026 ahead of a consultation in around March 2026.
Earlier in the day, another leading costs counsel, Alex Hutton KC, told delegates that the CJC’s review of the costs provisions in the Solicitors Act 1974 – prepared by a working party headed by Mr Justice Adam Johson – was now in draft form, with the intention to put it out for consultation by the end the year.
Mr Hutton said it was clear that the definitions of contentious and non-contentious business have not kept pace and needed changing, but that getting rid of the difference altogether “could cause problems”, for example with contingency fees pre-action or in tribunals.
Mr Bacon commented: “This whole regime is so antiquated. It’s great for business, but it’s terrible for consumers and not great for judges either being bogged down in these Solicitor Act assessments that create technicalities – it’s fine to assess what’s a reasonable sum that’s payable but not fine to get stuck into ‘What is a bill?’”
The problem, he said, referring also to the reforms recommended by the CJC’s litigation funding review earlier this year, was whether the government would consider them a sufficient priority to give them legislative time.