Trials disrupted as barristers boycott high-cost case panel
The Government is in crisis talks with the Bar Council after the poor uptake of the very high-cost criminal cases (VHCC) panel has threatened the number of major trials going ahead.The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Bar Council and Legal Services Commission (LSC) are in last-ditch talks to bolster the VHCC panel after the majority of barristers boycotted the panel over poor fee arrangements. The shortage of barristers - only 110 advocates out of the 2,300 offered contracts signed up by April because of the reduced fees - has left a number of major criminal trials at risk of disruption and delay.Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: "Barristers have not signed up to the contract offered by the Legal Services Commission as fees have been set at such a low rate - ludicrous levels! As a result there are not enough people available on the panel to do the work." A working group comprising the MoJ, Bar Council and LSC has been set up to create a new system for the VHCC panel, which will come into effect from next July, but the Government is hoping to come up with an interim solution until that point to prevent disruption. Critics argue the current solution to the poor take-up - proposing that panel solicitors will be able to instruct non-panel barristers at negotiable fees that do not exceed those on the VHCC contract - has not worked. The Bar Council wants to see a graduated fees system which would effectively remunerate advocates per case rather than by the hour.The current VHCC contract offers QCs a rate of £476 for each day spent in court. Top junior barristers will receive £390 and a junior acting alone will be paid £285 per day. For preparatory work, silks will earn £91-£145 an hour while junior barristers can earn £43 a day. Earlier this year Bar Council chairman Timothy Dutton QC warned that lawyers do not provide commoditised services and said the proposed changes to the funding of certain cases in England and Wales could "create a second-class service unless we can agree an approach [that] recognises that a case is not a commodity".
September 18, 2008 at 02:00 AM
2 minute read
The Government is in crisis talks with the Bar Council after the poor uptake of the very high-cost criminal cases (VHCC) panel has threatened the number of major trials going ahead.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Bar Council and Legal Services Commission (LSC) are in last-ditch talks to bolster the VHCC panel after the majority of barristers boycotted the panel over poor fee arrangements.
The shortage of barristers – only 110 advocates out of the 2,300 offered contracts signed up by April because of the reduced fees – has left a number of major criminal trials at risk of disruption and delay.
Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: "Barristers have not signed up to the contract offered by the Legal Services Commission as fees have been set at such a low rate – ludicrous levels! As a result there are not enough people available on the panel to do the work."
A working group comprising the MoJ, Bar Council and LSC has been set up to create a new system for the VHCC panel, which will come into effect from next July, but the Government is hoping to come up with an interim solution until that point to prevent disruption.
Critics argue the current solution to the poor take-up – proposing that panel solicitors will be able to instruct non-panel barristers at negotiable fees that do not exceed those on the VHCC contract – has not worked. The Bar Council wants to see a graduated fees system which would effectively remunerate advocates per case rather than by the hour.
The current VHCC contract offers QCs a rate of £476 for each day spent in court. Top junior barristers will receive £390 and a junior acting alone will be paid £285 per day. For preparatory work, silks will earn £91-£145 an hour while junior barristers can earn £43 a day.
Earlier this year Bar Council chairman Timothy Dutton QC warned that lawyers do not provide commoditised services and said the proposed changes to the funding of certain cases in England and Wales could "create a second-class service unless we can agree an approach [that] recognises that a case is not a commodity".
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
© 2025 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 AllHSF Defends Bayer on Roundup Class Action as Litigation Comes to an End in Australia
2 minute readNorton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over 'Unreasonable' Ethnicity Score System
3 minute readBirkenstocks: Footwear or Fine Art? German Law Firm SKW Schwarz Steps Up in Court
Freshfields and Quinn Emanuel Face Off in Latest JP Morgan-WeRealize Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Can a Law Firm Institutionalize Its Culture? Boies Schiller’s New Chairman Will Try
- 2Full 8th Circuit Hears First Amendment Challenge to School District’s ‘Equity Training’
- 3Exploring Generative AI’s Impact on Intellectual Property
- 4Training Lawyers in AI and Using AI to Boost Training
- 5EB-5 Rebounds After a Rocky Year: Challenges of 2024 Lay Groundwork for a Booming 2025
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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