Law Society: Fee review mechanism needed for Scotland’s civil courts

Law Society: Fee review mechanism needed for Scotland’s civil courts

The Law Society of Scotland has said a regular review mechanism for fees payable in civil court cases is critical to ensure solicitors are not short-changed by cost-of-living pressures.

The Scottish Civil Justice Council recently announced that solicitor fees in the Court of Session, Sheriff Appeal Court and Sheriff Court will rise from the end of the month for the first time in five years.

The Law Society’s Civil Justice Committee first requested a review of fees in 2021 in response to concerns over rising living costs, and believes an annual review tied to inflation should be adopted.

Civil Justice convener Iain Nicol said: “The increase in fees follows on from lengthy discussions with the Scottish Civil Justice Council Costs and Funding Committee and equates to an increase of 9.75 per cent in the tables of fees.

“The figure was based on an inflationary increase from 2018 when the fees were last reviewed up to January 2022. It is therefore already more than a year out of date and does not reflect the sharp rise in inflation over the last 12 months.

“Representations have been made, but thus far rejected, to introduce a mechanism for automatic annual inflationary increases, with the Costs and Funding Committee insisting on an evidence-based system to justify any increase. Our work to achieve a fair resolution continues.”

The Civil Justice Committee has responded more positively to the Scottish Civil Justice Council’s recent announcement of new rules on when hearings should be held in-person rather than online.

Mr Nicol said: “The new rules are the product of extensive discussion and consultation with the legal profession and other court users. Our members recognised the benefits of conducting procedural business online, whilst extolling the virtues of in-person hearings for evidential business.

“I am delighted that the new rules reflect these views and provide the added benefit of flexibility to alter the default position should the circumstances of a case justify that.”

Share icon
Share this article: