We also report on a costs firm buying a project management business and LeO’s rising budget
CPRC asks how extended fixed costs have worked
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has launched a consultation on the effectiveness of the extension of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in October 2023.
It forms part of an evidence-gathering initiative conducted in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
The committee had initially decided to “take stock” of the FRC regime a year after it was introduced, but this was delayed to give it more time to bed in.
“We hope that this will help uncover any emerging issues with FRC or the intermediate track. We will use this exercise to consider whether we need to make any changes to the CPR in the short to medium term,” it said.
The exercise will be followed by the MoJ’s full post-implementation review of the FRC regime as a whole, which is due to commence at some point next year.
Law Society vice-president Brett Dixon, a former member of the CPRC himself, said the review was “a welcome opportunity to assess how the reforms are working in practice since their rollout”.
He continued: “We previously raised concerns about the regime being extended to encompass virtually all areas of civil law and the need for further guidance in support of the new rules.
“There also remains a concern that the most vulnerable users of the court do not receive the same protections if caught by this scheme, as they would outside of it.
“This consultation provides a chance to evaluate whether those concerns have materialised. Any issues identified must be acted on swiftly to ensure the regime continues to support fair access to justice.”
But Mr Dixon said he was concerned that the deadline for responses – 5 January 2026 – was “very short”. He explained: “It coincides with the call for evidence for the whiplash review and includes the Christmas break. We hope this gives government enough time to gather enough responses.”
Rule committee to probe consistency of CPR with Mazur
The MoJ has asked the CPRC to look at the seeming disconnect in the CPR between their definition of ‘legal representative’ – which includes a “solicitor’s employee” – and the Mazur ruling, which said that a non-authorised person cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision of an authorised lawyer.
Responding to a letter from the justice select committee about the impact of the decision, courts and legal services minister Sarah Sackman said the MoJ had raised it with the CPRC.
“We agree that the judgment raises a significant set of questions about the clarity of the CPR in this respect… We are committed to ensuring that the rules do not inadvertently mislead practitioners or undermine statutory requirements.”
More broadly, the minister stressed that Mazur had not changed the law but acknowledged “the significant concerns it has raised within parts of the legal profession about how these requirements have been interpreted and applied in practice, and its potential wider implications”.
She convened a meeting last week with the Legal Services Board and the affected regulators, after which she was “satisfied that appropriate steps… are being taken, but will be closely monitoring whether further action is required”.
It was, she said, “premature to offer a definitive assessment” about the impact of Mazur on the profession.
In March 2024, the justice select committee told the then Conservative government that the case for a review of the Legal Services Act 2007 was “growing stronger and stronger”.
On that, Ms Sackman wrote: “[W]e recognise that the Mazur judgment, alongside recent developments such as the [Post Office] Horizon case and concerns arising from cases such as Axiom Ince and SSB Law Ltd, has affected confidence in aspects of the current regulatory framework.
“While there are mixed views across the sector on wholesale reform, we acknowledge that there is a growing case for re-examining the legislative foundations of legal services regulation. My officials are keeping this under active review and will update the committee on developments.”
This is similar language that the then Conservative Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, used in response to the committee’s letter.
Costs firm buys legal project management business
Costs firm Burcher Jennings has acquired Legal Project Management Ltd from its founder, Antony Smith, a fellow of the International Institute of Legal Project Management (IILPM). He is joining Burcher Jennings as a consultant.
As a result, Burcher Jennings has launched a legal services profitability programme, integrating legal services pricing, legal project management, and legal process improvement.
Costs Lawyer Richard Allen, the firm’s head of pricing, project management and process improvement, said that taken with its costs expertise, Burcher Jennings was “the only consultancy in the UK providing a complete, end-to-end approach to law-firm profitability”.
It was also the sole provider in the UK and Ireland of training and certification approved by the IILPM.
Burcher Jennings offers project management training specifically for Costs Lawyers. Mr Allen explained: “Costs Lawyers are very well placed to take on the role of legal project managers and indeed, many Costs Lawyers have transitioned into becoming full-time legal project managers after taking the legal project professional course.
“Others have applied the principles of legal project management to their work as Costs Lawyers and, as a result, they have expanded the range of work they do.
“With the increasing prevalence of fixed costs and fixed pricing for legal services, the relevance of project-based approaches to estimating, scheduling, resource planning, cost management, and reporting, is obvious.”
Legal Ombudsman seeks big budget increase
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has recommended a £2.4m, or 12.1%, increase in its existing £20m budget for next year.
Though Costs Lawyers generate little or no work for LeO, they still have to contribute to its operation through their practising fees, as do all other authorised lawyers.
The Costs Lawyer Standards Board’s proposed 2026 budget made provision for paying £30,000 in levies – paying for the Legal Services Board, LeO and the cross-regulator Legal Choices website – representing around 12% of its expenditure.
A consultation on the draft 2026/27 business plan and budget, published this week by the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC), the board that oversees LeO, said that although it was dealing with more complaints and more quickly, this could not keep up with the rate of new cases.
New complaints have increased by 26% year-on-year in 2025; by 2026/27, LeO expects demand to be 115% more than before the pandemic. Both the complexity and the number of issues in complaints have escalated too.
It put forward four possible budget increases – ranging from 6.7% for a minimum operating budget to 17.1%, which would help it reduce the number of cases awaiting investigation significantly – and recommended the third option of 12.1%. This “balances the need to invest to maintain customer journey improvements alongside the planning and design required for wider scheme transformation”.
LeO is planning a fundamental review of its scheme rules next year. This will look at issues such as who can complain, what can be complained about, and how LeO deals with them.
OLC chair Elisabeth Davies said: “LeO has transformed its service. These gains have been hard-won and must not be lost. But with complaints continuing to rise rapidly, LeO must be radical again and find new ways to meet growing demand.
“These challenges cannot be met by LeO alone. A sector-led approach is essential, including to improve standards of service and complaint handling, and LeO will continue to be a positive and proactive partner in supporting this improvement.
“Collaboration is key to lasting change, and that’s what sits at the heart of this consultation.”