Pressure is mounting on the government to increase civil legal aid fees after it emerged that a mountain of evidence has been submitted to the Ministry of Justice’s sustainability review.

Last week the Gazette reported on a 62-page blueprint that the Law Society submitted to the ministry’s call for evidence. Measures include raising fees for early advice work by 15%, which would cost £11.3m a year, and removing a 50% limit on remote working.

Organisations such as the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), Coram Children’s Legal Centre, Public Law Project (PLP) and the Bar Council also submitted evidence.

LAPG highlights in its submission the amount of unbillable time practitioners spend on running cases and managing contracts.

Additional costs directly linked to contractual requirements include the need to have an office in a specific location, staff supervision, audit, compliance and quality assurance, administrative tasks and the need for regular staff training.

Public Law Project discovered in research that it conducted on unmet need that one provider employed five full-time staff to administer and bill their legal aid work at a cost of around £200,000 annually. ‘Disproportionate and punitive’ Legal Aid Agency compliance activity potentially created financial risk due to sanctions that might be imposed for minor errors, PLP said.

PLP said: ‘Our own research confirms that even highly technical contract errors can result in providers facing substantial losses. Providers reported that mixing “reporting codes” when billing or missing contractual ‘Key Performance Indicators’ resulted in them being pulled up by the LAA, at significant financial cost.’

The Bar Council said the scheme for qualified legal representatives (QLRs) was an example of the effect of ‘inadequate’ fee levels.

In one case, a junior advocate was instructed to cross-examine an applicant who made allegations of domestic abuse against the respondent. The fact-finding hearing was listed for four days and the advocate was instructed to cross-examine the applicant on day two. The advocate was paid only for the one trial day they attended.

‘The fee assumed that the QLR’s preparation was commensurate with a one-day trial, which was simply not right. The QLR had to read all papers, watch all CCTV/body-worn footage that was relevant to the case, and was cross-examining a key witness,’ the Bar Council said.

Meanwhile Coram Children’s Legal Centre said matters that have always been in scope, such as child abuse, often fall foul of evidence restrictions or the means threshold. Even in clear cases of child abuse, if the abuser is not the other party to proceedings, the child may not receive legal aid.

The review is expected to conclude by the end of March. Any final policy decisions should appear later this year.