Legal Aid Agency

3. Miss X complains that the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has not provided her with a breakdown of the costs incurred, a final bill, or an explanation of how the amount was calculated. Instead, she was advised to consult her solicitor for this information. Miss X further complains that the LAA did not provide her with an estimate of the potential costs she might incur if she lost her case, nor did it issue any interim invoices, or provide regular updates on the ongoing accumulation of costs.

4. Miss X says the lack of transparency around the calculation of the final bill has caused her significant distress and financial anxiety. She believes the bill may be inaccurate as a result of the information not being clearly explained.

5. By bringing her complaint to us, Miss X is seeking a full explanation of the process followed in calculating her final bill, including a breakdown of all costs incurred, and service improvements.

6. Miss X was a defendant in a Crown Court case and was represented by a solicitor under legal aid, which had been granted. Miss X presumed that all contributions had been settled once her case concluded, which had been closed for approximately a year.

7. In May 2024, Miss X unexpectedly received a letter stating that she owed a capital contribution order of £95,349.01 which she states, ‘came out of the blue’.

8. Following this, she made several requests to the LAA for a breakdown of the final bill, but did not receive one. Miss X’s solicitor informed her that providing such information was the LAA’s responsibility and subsequently ceased involvement, stating that their role had ended. However, the LAA directed Miss X back to her solicitor, leaving her unable to obtain clarity. Miss X says a charge was also placed against her property, despite being told her case was paused.

9. She raised a formal complaint in October 2024, with the LAA, asserting that the sum was disproportionately high, had not made clear to her, and was also a matter of concern for her solicitor. She requested both an explanation of how the figure had been calculated, and a breakdown of the final bill.

10. The LAA issued its first response on 1 November, stating that it could not issue the capital contribution order, until final defence costs have been submitted and then paid to her solicitor and counsel. Once the bills were received, the LAA advised that the collection agent would then calculate liability.

11. The LAA further explained that it could not estimate costs at the outset of proceedings due to numerous factors, and that it was expected the solicitor would advise on potential costs. It clarified that the LAA does not receive detailed solicitor bills, but requires firms to comply with the requirements. A breakdown of costs from its MAAT system, including litigator and advocate fees was provided to Miss X.

12. Miss X responded, expressing dissatisfaction and questioned inconsistencies in the explanation. She also contended she had been charged under the wrong defence categorisation and also disputed the volume of evidence charged for.

13. In its stage two response, the LAA stated there were no grounds to reduce the claims already paid to her solicitor, and it was therefore unable to write off, or amend the sum owed. It added that it found no error in the assessment of the bill. The LAA advised it could not investigate concerns relating to her solicitor’s conduct, but directed Miss X to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. She was further advised that, if she remained dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to the PHSO, through her MP.

Administrative background

14. After a person is charged with a criminal offence, their solicitor may assist with the application for legal aid.

Legal Aid Agency

15. Following receipt of an application, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) conduct both a Means Test and a Merits Test. Upon completion of these assessments, the LAA may approve the application and issue a Representation Order to the legally represented person (defendant) confirming their eligibility for legal aid.

16. The LAA will also assess whether the legally assisted person needs to pay an Income Contribution Order and (if required) will send a notice of contributions.

17. The Legal Aid Agency roles include:

• processing legal aid applications • providing funding • issuing Representation Orders • Assessing if an Income Contribution Order is required • holding contracts with legal providers • ensuring quality and compliance • promoting access to justice.

The Litigator’s Graduated Fee Scheme (LGFS)

18. The Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (LGFS) is the mechanism by which litigators (solicitors) are paid for work done in publicly funded Crown Court cases, and are a direct replacement for the hourly rates claims.

19. These fee schemes were, in part, designed to incentive increasing efficiency, by introducing a range of fixed and graduated fees which would apply irrespective of the actual time spent conducting a case. They were also introduced to simplify the claiming and administration of Crown Court claims.

20. Under the LGFS, any evidence used to validate a claim can be objectively verified, using independent data. This reduces the scope for disagreements about what payment can be expected for a particular case.

21. When designing the LGFS, research was carried out into the ‘key cost drivers’ of payments made in ex post facto claims, i.e. what key elements of each case, justified the level of payment made. These key drivers were labelled as ‘proxies’.

22. These proxies, once validated by the LAA’s Case Management team, are then used to calculate a payment amount, using complex/detailed payment tables set out in the regulations. The LAA’s systems have been designed to calculate the fees payable automatically, so that caseworkers need only verify the proxies claimed.

23. These proxies are:

• the type of case • the class of offence - The most common offences have been categorised as falling within an offence class. The classes are labelled classes A to K • pages of prosecution evidence (PPE) • number of days trial • number of defendants represented.

24. Litigators will also often claim disbursements (such as expert’s reports) and travel, alongside their claim for a graduated/fixed fee.

Capital Contribution Order

25. A Capital Contribution Order (CCO) is issued by the LAA when a legally represented person receives legal aid, but has capital assets (savings, investments or property) above a certain threshold. A CCO is a financial obligation, not a charge.

26. If the amount is not paid, the LAA may secure the debt by placing a charge against their property, effectively turning the unpaid capital contribution into a secured debt.

29. Miss X told us that the LAA did not provide a ‘rough estimate’ of the potential costs she could be expected to pay, should she lose her case or issue any interim invoices/updates to show how costs were accumulating. Miss X says she only became aware of the costs, when she received a letter from the debt collection agency confirming she owed £95,349.01.

30. We acknowledge that receiving a bill for such a high amount, would have come as a significant shock, particularly as Miss X says she was advised by her solicitor that she ‘qualified for legal aid and would not have to pay any defence costs’.

31. In its first response the LAA stated ‘The likelihood of having to pay from this source would be dependent on if the legally assisted person has, or acquires assets, from which payments may be made. When an application for legal aid is made, we are aware that a person’s circumstance may chance during the life of the case and the wording is intended to advise of the possibility of this arising.

32. It added, ‘The LAA process applications for legal aid. It is expected that the legally assisted person’s solicitor, would advise on the potential outcome. The LAA is not in a position to advise, even vaguely, of the potential case costs due to the many factors that can affect these’.

33. In addition, the LAA stated ‘I am unsure as to why your solicitor has informed you that her firm did not have any involvement in the billing process. The billing teams in the LAA can only consider the costs claimed by the solicitor and counsel, for the work carried out’.

34. We can see that the LAA also explained that it could not provide a potential estimate of costs, at the outset of the case, as the outcome of a case can depend on numerous factors, Including the plea entered, which can result in additional costs.

35. We acknowledge that Miss X states her solicitor advised her they are not responsible for calculating the bill, and that it is the responsibility of the LAA to provide a detailed breakdown. Miss X has expressed that she feels she is being passed between her solicitor and the LAA, with neither taking ownership of the matter.

36. We also recognise how deeply frustrating and distressing this has been for Miss X, particularly as she has still not received the detailed breakdown, she has repeatedly requested.

37. It is important to note, that, it is not the LAA’s role to provide such estimates or interim updates. It is the solicitor’s responsibility to keep their client reasonably informed throughout the process, including any potential liability for contributions, or unusually high costs.

38. Whilst the LAA handles the formal assessment and billing, the solicitor is expected to update their client if there is a likelihood that costs may be significant, so they are aware and informed of the financial implications, as the case progresses. A failure to provide such updates, would be a matter concerning the solicitor’s professional obligations, rather than the LAA's administrative functions.

39. The evidence shows that the LAA has explained to Miss X how the final amount was calculated, which was based on the claims submitted by her solicitor (and counsel) under the LGFS.

40. The LAA’s second response stated ‘It is your solicitor’s responsibility, as a firm with a legal aid contract, to make sure the client is fully advised of the legal aid process and what it may mean for them financially. The solicitor will represent the client and appoint a barrister, and the case will proceed through the court until conclusion. It is only at the end of the case that the solicitor and barrister submit their claims to the LAA. It is only once we receive the claims that we can pay the solicitor for their services to your defence. The LAA has no control over the court proceedings nor the pages of prosecution evidence, pleas that are made, or any other aspect of the case. It is not possible for the LAA to issue updates on any fees incurred’.

41. It added ‘The regulations that govern the remuneration of solicitors for legal aid work set the fees applicable for payment but does not control when the solicitor and barrister will submit their claims for payment, or what fees will be applicable when they do. It is the solicitor’s responsibility to record their time and the details of the case and then submit their claim to the LAA. We will then pay the claim once it has been verified. I am unclear why your solicitor can suggest it is not their responsibility for this process, unless they submit a claim, we cannot pay them’.

42. The LAA’s role is to verify the accuracy of the claim, not to estimate costs in advance. Although costs accrue throughout the course of proceedings, solicitors (and counsel) ordinarily submit their claims (usually based on the standard fee scheme proxies) for payment to the LAA, once the case has concluded. It is at this stage that the actual defence costs become known, and the solicitor and counsel receive payment. The legally assisted person’s liability is then calculated, and a CCO is issued accordingly.

43. The LAA has clearly explained that it cannot provided estimates in advance as it has no control over what claims a solicitor may submit during the course of the proceedings. Payments can only be made against claims submitted by the solicitor.

44. The evidence shows that the LAA did not ‘refuse’ to provide a breakdown of the incurred costs. The LAA provided a breakdown of the costs from its MAAT system. Although it explained that it was not ‘detailed’ the LAA correctly advised Miss X, that her solicitor would be best placed to provide the information sought.

45. The LAA also confirmed that its finance team had reviewed the solicitor’s claims and explained that it does not retain the original claim documentation. Additionally, the LAA provided Miss X with a document explaining the LGFS scheme and how litigator fees are paid. We can see that the LAA provided what information it held on its system, regarding the breakdown of the costs. It also outlined what step a solicitor should take if they believe a claim is ‘too high’ as this could affect a client’s financial liability, under the CCO.

46. The LAA explained that its role is to monitor contracted firms, it also clarified the reasons for the limited information it could provide on her case. The LAA did however, provide all information it held on her case. It also advised ‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), have jurisdiction to investigate and make findings. If any impropriety is found, then at that point we can consider any appropriate action as to fees’.

47. We have carefully considered the concerns raised by Miss X and we are satisfied that the LAA acted appropriately. In line with our Principles of Good Administration – getting it right, we expect organisations to act in line with its own policies and procedures. We can see that the LAA provided clear information on its role and its limitations, in the process.

48. It also provided an effective service by supplying Miss X with information for how payments are calculated under the LGFS scheme and provided a document which included this information in more detail. In addition, the LAA supplied all bill details it held for her case and provided her with advice on what her solicitor could do, if they believe the claim is too high.

49. We acknowledge that this has been an extremely difficult situation for Miss X, and we do not wish to diminish the impact it has had on her. We understand that she has also raised concerns with the Legal Ombudsman. This is what we would have recommended, given her dissatisfaction with the claim submitted for some work she feels may not have been carried out.

50. In summary we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. This is because the LAA has correctly advised Miss X, that it is the responsibility of her solicitor, to provide information on any potential costs she may incur if she lost her case, and to provide her with a breakdown of the incurred costs. We would not have expected the LAA to have done anything more.

51. We thank Miss X for bringing her concerns to our attention and wish her well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Miss X’s complaint about the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). We are sorry to hear how much distress the whole situation has caused Miss X.

2. Having looked carefully at the evidence, we have not identified any failings in the circumstances which led to Miss X approaching us. For that reason, although we recognise how difficult the situation has been for Miss X, we have decided to take no further action on this complaint. We will explain the reasons below in more detail.