MoJ defiant as barristers boycott VHCC deal
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has refused to increase fee levels for very high-cost criminal cases (VHCCs) despite thousands of barristers opting to boycott the new Government contract. Just 130 barristers from the 2,300 that were offered contracts have signed up to the deal, which aims to lower fees on major criminal cases by as much as 20%-30%.
February 05, 2008 at 10:35 AM
2 minute read
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has refused to increase fee levels for very high-cost criminal cases (VHCCs) despite thousands of barristers opting to boycott the new Government contract.
Just 130 barristers from the 2,300 that were offered contracts have signed up to the deal, which aims to lower fees on major criminal cases by as much as 20%-30%.
However, as virtually all of the 330 law firms that applied for the panel have signed up, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the MoJ have announced that solicitors will be able to instruct non-panel barristers at the reduced rates.
The VHCC contract offers QCs a rate of £476 for each day spent in court. Leading junior barristers will receive £390 and a junior acting alone will be paid £285 per day. For preparatory work, silks will pocket between £91 and £145 an hour.
Around 100 VHCC cases were funded by legal aid last year, with defence teams typically paid around £400,000 per case. However, some cases cost several million pounds.
Commenting on the news, legal aid minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said: "Both the LSC and I are very disappointed that most barristers who bid for VHCC work have refused to sign. It's essential that we put these measures in place to ensure that access to justice is not compromised in any way."
The news comes just days after Bar Council chairman Timothy Dutton QC warned of a "second-class system" emerging from the Government's legal aid reforms, which have attempted to slash the legal aid budget.
Dutton said: "We urge the LSC and ministers to reflect on the demerits of their proposed scheme and to return to the table to devise one based on a fee for the work undertaken and not hourly rates.
"This would be fairer to the taxpayer and the advocate alike and would stand a much better prospect of attracting the most able into this difficult work."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 4Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 5The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250