The Civil Justice Council’s 2023 costs review is making significant advancements, as highlighted by the recent developments disclosed by Lord Justice Birss. During a roundtable hosted by the Association of Costs Lawyers, he articulated that the primary focus is now shifting towards long-term objectives.
Following initial changes like the increase of guideline hourly rates (GHR), two significant workstreams have been identified. The first aims to pilot a ‘costs budgeting-lite’ model, and the second seeks to integrate counsel within the GHR framework. Shaman Kapoor of 39 Essex Chambers acknowledges GHR’s potential to enhance predictability. Meanwhile, Roger Mallalieu KC of 4 New Square maintains caution, highlighting the historical complexities in setting solicitors’ rates and the impracticality of geographical distinctions for barristers.
Mallalieu elaborates that barristers’ fees are often assessed on call level without considering overheads, describing it as a “blunt tool.” Costs Judge Rowley further adds that eliminating detailed scrutiny of case complexity impacts nuanced billing, drawing parallels with previous simplifications in solicitors’ fees.
Lord Justice Birss acknowledges uncertainty over whether GHR will ultimately encompass counsel fees or remain segmented, yet underscores the necessity for a more functional system. He is open to innovative proposals that could refine the existing frameworks.
Additionally, Lord Justice Jack Ridgway discusses changes in budgeting, noting increased willingness among masters to facilitate budget exchanges and expert agreements. Although some county courts lag, the shift towards a more collaborative approach is evident. David Marshall from the London firm Anthony Gold mirrors these observations, citing growing flexibility in directions and budget agreements.
Costs lawyer Steven Green believes that a ‘costs budgeting-lite’ approach can simplify the preparation and client communication processes. Despite eleven years since the introduction of ‘proportionality’ in costs, its significance remains unclear. Both Judge Rowley and Mallalieu express their inability to distinguish clearly between ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’ costs, with Ridgway suggesting that it functions as a broader test against resource disparity in legal proceedings.
The discourse also touched upon artificial intelligence, with Ridgway asserting that AI can streamline bill drafting through standardisation, albeit human oversight remains essential.
Steven Green draws comparisons to past debates over electronic billing, underscoring that AI’s efficacy is contingent upon proper time recording and cultural shifts within the profession.
In conclusion, the discussions at the recent roundtable underscore a pivotal moment in the realm of legal costs. With an emphasis on refining cost budgeting and integrating new technologies, the legal sector is poised for significant evolution. The changes, while complex, promise to enhance both predictability and fairness in the system.
