*/
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
Far-ranging month for the Chair of the Bar
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the most recent data on alcohol misuse in the UK, and the implications for alcohol testing in family proceedings
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how tailored financial planning can help barristers take control of their finances and plan with confidence
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
In this wide-ranging interview, Professor Jo Delahunty KC, Family Law KC of the Year, talks to Anthony Inglese CB about the values that shaped her, the moment she found her vocation and, in an intensely personal call to arms, why time is running out for the legal aid Bar
Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office process fit for purpose? Women barristers’ experiences of bullying are not being reported or, if they are, they are not making it through the system, says Tana Adkin KC
Thomas Roe KC and Andrew O’Kola respond to an article by Dr Leonardo Raznovich (Counsel , October 2025) – ‘Privy Council colonialism? Piercing the constitutional veil’
Chair of the Bar reports back
The client’s best interests could be well-served by sharing the advocacy with junior counsel more often than you might think – Naomi Cunningham and Charlotte Eves explore some less orthodox ways to divide the speaking role
