Under pressure

Michael Gove has been in the news a lot in recent weeks, and while the legal profession might have been relieved to see Chris Grayling departing for pastures new, it is swiftly realising that there may be even more to fear from his replacement as justice secretary.

In different ways, the government is adopting measures to force the legal world to pay its way, as it would see it. Others might describe the approach rather differently.

First, court fees: the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA), like many other interested organisations, continues to express concerns over the ‘enhanced’ court fees introduced in March, though objecting seems an uphill task – the phrase ‘my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts’ springs to mind.

The apparent intention to provide an entirely self-funded civil court system seems wrong in principle, given that an effective, efficient, and predictable civil court system is something from which the whole community benefits.

Front-loading that cost onto claimants alone, at the time they can least afford those fees, will have a significant impact on, and will reduce access to justice for, small businesses and individual claimants. Further, the distorted fees bear no relation to the costs incurred by the court service, considering only 5 per cent of cases go to trial – creating a debtor’s charter and disadvantaged claimants.

Now, though, another review prefacing further hikes is underway – before the review of the last round of court fee increases has been completed, let alone properly considered.

But then there’s more, with news of Gove’s meeting with City law firms, and the prospect of a levy on those same firms to fund the courts in what seems to be an opportunistic move towards hypothecated tax.

The week before that, Gove found time to speak eloquently and positively at the financial list launch about London’s strengths as the world’s leading dispute resolution centre. The benefits to the economy of the tax revenues created by the legal profession are obvious, but having banged the drum for London and its lawyers, that debate seems to have moved on past a demand for more pro bono activities to an opportunistic tax grab aimed at certain parts of the legal profession. It may be mere kite-flying but, given that the legal community is notoriously poor at lobbying Whitehall, and few will sympathise with lawyers’ hard luck stories, maybe not.

Doesn’t more care need to be taken by the government if the golden goose isn’t to be killed? Eradicating one perceived unfairness by creating another seems lazy thinking. This is all about money, sure, and users of the legal system and those who earn fees out of it are likely to be forced to pay more – although not to support those parts of the legal system they use, but to subsidise the criminal and family courts, with which they seemingly have little to no connection, save in the widest sense.

What next? A tax on footballers to supplement the TV licence fee? Now there’s an idea, Michael…

John Bramhall is president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA) and head of commercial litigation at DAC Beachcroft

Copyright & permissions