*/
THE Family Law Bar Association submitted a response to the Ministry of Justice consultation entitled Reforming the Legal Aid Family Barrister Fee Scheme concerning legal fees in family law cases.
The Family Law Bar Association’s response to the Ministry of Justice consultation is made in the context of increasing pressure on the family justice system which is putting the most vulnerable in society at risk. At a time when senior family judges are publicly raising concern that the system is creaking at the seams, the Government seems intent on putting it under further pressure by proposing cuts of £13m to public funding for legal representation in family cases. Children, families and the administration of the courts will suffer. These proposals will actually increase costs.
Public funding in family law matters is only available for the most vulnerable. The Ministry of Justice’s proposals in the consultation paper will have the effect of reducing the number of barristers prepared to undertake family law work and risks the quality of representation available to these families. The proposals have the potential to create a two-tier system of justice in the family courts.
The Chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, Lucy Theis QC
said :
‘The protection of children is of concern to us all. There is often no second chance when children are at risk of harm. The removal of a child from his or her natural parents by the State has rightly been described as one of the most draconian decisions that can be made. Parents and especially children in such cases require effective, experienced representation. The expertise of the barristers who practice in this area is relied upon by both litigants and judges. The proposed cuts will not only reduce the number of practitioners who are willing to undertake this important public service but also discourage those wanting to specialise in this area.
The Family Law Bar Association is already seeing members withdrawing from publicly funded work; junior members of the profession are finding that they can’t afford to continue doing such work and senior members are not being replaced. If this trend continues – and it will be exacerbated by the Government’s proposals – the consequence will be the loss of effective experienced advocates to those who need them most. This will in turn impact on the family judiciary who are often appointed from those who have experience in conducting these cases.
The family courts are already under pressure. These proposals will result in the reduced availability of publicly funded advocates. This will risk an increased number of litigants in person appearing before family courts with the consequence that there will be increased costs for the courts, the other parties (invariably in receipt of public funding) and delay in decisions being made in relation to vulnerable children. This will further undermine public confidence in the family law system.’
She went on:
‘The Ministry of Justice’s proposals are short-sighted, ill-thought out and will result in the very consequences which it is trying to avoid – increased costs. The Family Law Bar Association calls on Lord Hunt to look afresh at how to fund family law cases. We have submitted proposals to revise the graduated fee system and wish to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Government to ensure that this is done in a way which minimises risk to the most vulnerable in society and ensures they have an effective voice in the family justice system.’
The Family Law Bar Association’s response to the Ministry of Justice consultation is made in the context of increasing pressure on the family justice system which is putting the most vulnerable in society at risk. At a time when senior family judges are publicly raising concern that the system is creaking at the seams, the Government seems intent on putting it under further pressure by proposing cuts of £13m to public funding for legal representation in family cases. Children, families and the administration of the courts will suffer. These proposals will actually increase costs.
Public funding in family law matters is only available for the most vulnerable. The Ministry of Justice’s proposals in the consultation paper will have the effect of reducing the number of barristers prepared to undertake family law work and risks the quality of representation available to these families. The proposals have the potential to create a two-tier system of justice in the family courts.
The Chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, Lucy Theis QC
said :
‘The protection of children is of concern to us all. There is often no second chance when children are at risk of harm. The removal of a child from his or her natural parents by the State has rightly been described as one of the most draconian decisions that can be made. Parents and especially children in such cases require effective, experienced representation. The expertise of the barristers who practice in this area is relied upon by both litigants and judges. The proposed cuts will not only reduce the number of practitioners who are willing to undertake this important public service but also discourage those wanting to specialise in this area.
The Family Law Bar Association is already seeing members withdrawing from publicly funded work; junior members of the profession are finding that they can’t afford to continue doing such work and senior members are not being replaced. If this trend continues – and it will be exacerbated by the Government’s proposals – the consequence will be the loss of effective experienced advocates to those who need them most. This will in turn impact on the family judiciary who are often appointed from those who have experience in conducting these cases.
The family courts are already under pressure. These proposals will result in the reduced availability of publicly funded advocates. This will risk an increased number of litigants in person appearing before family courts with the consequence that there will be increased costs for the courts, the other parties (invariably in receipt of public funding) and delay in decisions being made in relation to vulnerable children. This will further undermine public confidence in the family law system.’
She went on:
‘The Ministry of Justice’s proposals are short-sighted, ill-thought out and will result in the very consequences which it is trying to avoid – increased costs. The Family Law Bar Association calls on Lord Hunt to look afresh at how to fund family law cases. We have submitted proposals to revise the graduated fee system and wish to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Government to ensure that this is done in a way which minimises risk to the most vulnerable in society and ensures they have an effective voice in the family justice system.’
THE Family Law Bar Association submitted a response to the Ministry of Justice consultation entitled Reforming the Legal Aid Family Barrister Fee Scheme concerning legal fees in family law cases.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
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
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
