The increase comes, in some cases, as the first rise since the panels were first introduced in 1997. However, the numbers remain far below what the Attorney General’s civil panel rates would have been had they risen in line with inflation.
Last year, a survey distributed by the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA) revealed that 635 respondents believed that when professional expenses and tax were considered, it was clearly uneconomic to take on any government work, as the risk of the cost was too large.
ALBA said that had the rates been increased in line with the consumer price index, the rates for those over five years’ call would now sit at around the following:
London C Panel rate (per hour)
London B Panel rate (per hour)
London A Panel rate (per hour)
The 25% increases makes the rates £100, £125 and £150 respectively.
The standard rate for silks of £180 would have been £342 under the same calculations, but the silk rate has been split into a new three-tiered concept, made up of counsel with fewer than 10 years as a KC, counsel with more than 10 years on a rate less than £200, or on a rate between £200 and £269.
The new silk rates are £225, £245 and £270 respectively.
A spokesperson for the Attorney General expressed the importance of panel counsel lawyers to the Government’s future plans. They said:
“Panel counsel lawyers provide government with expert advice on some of the most complex and sensitive legal issues.
“This fee increase – the first since 2003 – will ensure the government has access to the best legal advice to enable us to deliver our Plan for Change and promote economic growth.”
Chair of the Bar Council, Barbara Mills KC said:
“We welcome this uplift in fees for counsel but, given that the rates have not been increased in more than 20 years, they have fallen very far behind inflation. We regard this as a necessary first step but further uplifts will be required if the government is to attract barristers to this important work.
“We’re grateful to ALBA for gathering the evidence that helped to make the compelling case for fees to be increased and we welcome the government’s commitment to more frequent reviews in future.”
