*/
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
