The High Court has dismissed a law firm’s judicial review claim relating to when two legal aid payments can be recovered for the same client following an initial consultation.
In 2018 JHB Law, trading as Lawstop, opened two matter starts for each of four new clients, one for housing law and a second for community care. However, the Legal Aid Agency decided that in each case the claimant had acted in breach of contract in opening the community care matter start.
Lawstop’s appeals to the LAA’s independent costs assessor were dismissed in February last year. This gave rise to the JR proceedings, in which the Law Society intervened.
Under the terms of the contract between the parties, it was accepted that a second matter start could only be opened when the client had ‘more than one separate and distinct legal problem’. In R (JHB Law Ltd (trading as Lawstop)) v the Lord Chancellor, Mr Justice Lavender accepted that the ICA had interpreted and applied that test correctly.
The question of whether a second matter start was justified fell to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the individual cases.
The claim was dismissed.
Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Overly restrictive approaches to billing as highlighted in this case place the fragile legal aid system under even greater stress. In bringing this case on behalf of their clients, Lawstop have ensured that the law has been clarified, which is beneficial for the profession.’
Shuja added: ‘We are pleased the judge accepted our interventions, making clear that the correct test for “matter starts” does not involve deciding which of the legal problems is the predominant one and then allowing only for that. The correct test is simply whether the client has more than one separate and distinct legal problem.
‘The judge also said it would have been wrong for the LAA assessor to have decided that there could not be a legal problem unless there was first a dispute. This important clarification means the LAA will no longer be able to refuse matter starts on what the judge confirmed is an unlawful premise.
‘The LAA needs to understand where separate areas of law need separate advice, according to the rules of the legal aid system.’
2 Readers' comments