Legal Cost Specialists

2014 Guideline Hourly Rates

By on Jul 29, 2014 | 6 comments

The new Guideline Hourly Rates for 2014 have now been announced.

The bad news for those hoping for an increase in the rates is that they remain the same as for 2010.

The good news for those hoping for an increase in the rates is that they remain the same as for 2010. The Report of the Costs Committee had recommended a range of amendments with the average rate going down, not up. The recommendation for Grade C Band One was a reduction from the current £161 per hour to £127. Aren’t you pleased they stayed the same?

Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, rejected the main recommendations in the report on the basis of the “fundamental” shortcomings in the evidence upon which the recommendations were meant to be based. Not enough lawyers had bothered to respond to the survey. As Professor Dominic Regan succinctly summarised the position: “rubbish in, rubbish out. Dodgy data, nothing doing”

Lord Dyson concluded:

• there should not be an additional Grade A star
• that separate GHR bands specific to specialist fields of civil litigation should not be introduced
• that separate rates should not be introduced for detailed assessments of costs, but that there should be greater flexibility in detailed assessments than would ordinarily be shown in summary assessments
• there should be no new Grade E fee grade for paralegals (this would have led to reductions in rates for some Grade D fee earners in Band One from £118 to £75 – a 36% reduction)

The only “changes” Lord Dyson accepted were that:

• the criterion for Grade A fee earners should be amended so that it includes Fellows of CILEX with 8 years’ post-qualification experience
• that Costs Lawyers who are suitably qualified and subject to regulation be eligible for payment at GHR Grades C or B, depending on the complexity of the work

The changes are to come into force on 1 October 2014.

The actual wording of the recommendation in the report for Costs Lawyers was:

“The ACL provided evidence giving details on the qualification route, continuing professional development and regulatory framework for Costs Lawyers. The Committee agreed, and determined that the following approach should be adopted for those Costs Lawyers who are suitably qualified and subject to regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to undertake reserved legal activities:

(i) For budgeting and bill drafting, save in exceptional circumstances, Costs Lawyers should sit within the grades for Grade C and D fee earners;
(ii) For practising litigation and advocacy, save in exceptional circumstances, costs lawyers should sit within the grades for Grades C or B.”

The amendments for Fellows of CILEX with 8 years’ post-qualification experience and Costs Lawyers are largely changes of style rather than substance. The courts have always had the power to grant experienced Fellows rates equivalent to Grade A rates in appropriate cases and the Senior Courts Costs Office has always accepted that more complex bill drafting may justify Grade C rates and advocacy may justify Grade C or even Grade B rates. The only small extension is to now recognise (costs) litigation in the category now potentially justifying Grade C rates. The only real disputes will be the level of complexity that will be required to justify Grade C or B rates. I anticipate that there will be little real difference to what has gone before.

The Association of Costs Lawyer’s email alert on the news rather misleading stated:

“[Lord Dyson] has however accepted that Costs Lawyers should be recognized by being included in the banding at, predominantly, Grade C and B”.

Lord Dyson appears to have accepted the Report’s recommendation. He has not rejected the reports view that budgeting and bill drafting “should sit within the grades for Grade C and D fee earners”.

As with judgments, never just read the headnote.


  1. I wonder why so few responses were made


    29th July 2014

  2. “The Defendant contends that this work could have been carried out by a lowly Grade E paralegal, and as such, we will be offering £75 per hour…”

    I could have had so much fun.

    Northern Monkey

    29th July 2014

  3. Simon, when’s the blog on pre- Jackson success fees being illegal coming out?

    Northern Monkey

    29th July 2014

  4. 3 points:

    1. The Committee, and the whole profession, clearly haven’t learned a thing, since the likes of “Findlay v Glaxo”
    2. How exactly was the rates information supposed to be “impartial”, when one of the sources for the submissions came from the company owned by the ABI costs member?
    3. So a solicitor has to pass a 3 year degree course, the 1 year LPC, a 2 year training contract, then practice as a solicitor for 4 years, before being classed as “Grade C”; and yet a CLown, having done a 3 year course whilst working for a costs firm, immediately is “Grade C”??

    As with most things you see in costs, you couldn’t make it up. I really must write that book…..


    29th July 2014

  5. L: Governor Jackson, I should have expected to find you holding Dyson’s leash. I recognised your foul statutory instruments when I was brought your dramatic funding proposals.

    J: Charming to the LASPO. You don’t know how hard I found it, signing the order to implement my reforms.

    L: I’m surprised that you had the courage to take the responsibility yourself.

    J: Before its execution, I’d like you to join me for a ceremony that will make these reforms fully operational. No rebellious Costs Lawyer will dare oppose the judiciary now.

    L: The more you tighten your grip, Jackson, the more bills will slip through your fingers.


    29th July 2014

  6. I find the lack of responses disturbing.


    30th July 2014

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.