The latest developments in the Civil Justice Council’s 2023 costs review were discussed by Lord Justice Birss at a recent event.
- Costs budgeting-lite and the potential extension of guideline hourly rates (GHR) to counsel are underway.
- Shaman Kapoor and Roger Mallalieu KC offered differing perspectives on the implementation of GHR for counsel.
- The concept of proportionality in legal cost budgeting continues to generate debate among experts.
- Artificial intelligence is seen as a potential tool for efficiency in bill drafting within legal practices.
Lord Justice Birss spoke at the Association of Costs Lawyers roundtable, indicating that while straightforward changes from the costs review have been implemented — such as increased GHR — future projects will focus more on long-term plans like costs budgeting-lite and integrating counsel into the GHR framework.
Shaman Kapoor from 39 Essex Chambers noted the potential for GHR to bring predictability, but Roger Mallalieu KC voiced concerns, emphasizing challenges in establishing figures due to historical difficulties pinpointing solicitors’ hourly rates and the inadequacy of geographical area determinations for barristers.
Currently, barristers’ fees are often assessed based solely on the level of call, without factoring in overheads, which Kapoor criticised as an ineffective tool. Costs Judge Rowley added that this method lacks the nuance found in previous models that considered the case’s complexity rather than just hours spent.
Birss highlighted that the extension aims primarily to aid in a summary assessment of counsel fees, unresolved as to whether rates will be set by specialism.
Jack Ridgway noted the evolving judicial attitude towards budgeting, particularly the increasing tendency for parties to exchange and attempt to agree on budgets, although county courts have been slower to adopt these practices.
David Marshall echoed this evolving flexibility among masters, who are increasingly encouraging parties to agree budgets post-direction, enhancing efficiency.
The ongoing debate surrounding the distinction between ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’ costs remains unresolved, with experts like Judge Rowley and Mr Mallalieu aligning on the confusion surrounding these terms in practice.
Jack Ridgway highlighted proportionality as a test to prevent financial coercion against less-resourced parties, although its practical efficacy is debatable.
Ridgway touched on artificial intelligence’s role in the automation of bill drafting tasks, acknowledging its potential to streamline what is considered a menial task, albeit not where costs lawyers deliver the most value.
Steven Green noted AI’s potential hinges on accurate time recording and integration with electronic systems, drawing parallels to past technological transitions in legal budgeting.
The discussions indicate a cautious but forward-moving approach to cost budgeting and GHR in the legal sector with ongoing debates yet significant potential for efficiency gains.
