AGFS Consultation

03/03/2017 UPDATE - FARRINGDON CHAMBERS FULL RESPONSE TO THE AGFS CONSULTATION

Farringdon Chambers  has now responded to the MOJ's AGFS consultation.

Click here to download the full response.

 

PUBLICATION OF COMPARATIVE DATA – AGFS CONSULTATION

Farringdon Chambers has today (23/02/2017) released comprehensive fee comparison data that shows an overall cut of 24.5% to fee income as a result of the proposed changes to AGFS.

The data represents a full year examination of granular billing data, looking at the original AF1, PPE, specifics of the case type to decide micro-banding, PTPHs, sentences and SAFs, and special preparation. Every exercise of this nature may be prone to some error; but we believe that this level of detail is more than the LAA can and did provide for modelling of the new system, and our figures are as robust and accurate as possible.

The data is derived from 8 representative Counsel at Farringdon Chambers, ranging from newly qualified barristers having just completed pupillage, right up to 20+ years call. The case mix ranges from predominantly PTPH, standard appearance and Magistrates’ Court appeals, right through to sex cases, paper-heavy frauds and drugs cases.

Farringdon, like many others, are concerned about the effects the proposals will have on the very junior end of the bar. We have therefore also compiled a comparison table of the types of offences that may usually be covered by very junior barristers at guilty pleas and cracks. The table shows that the very junior bar are clearly worse off when covering these guilty pleas and cracked trials, especially where (as with many offences), current higher-level offences are re-classified as “standard” and paid at very low rates, and the definition of a “crack” is re-defined. We also note that the original proposals by the Bar Council[1] to have two levels of “standard” case (basic and enhanced, based on PPE) appear to have been abandoned in the current proposals.

Click here to download a copy of our fee analysis

 


[1] http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/393156/bc_agfs_working_group_summary_150110.pdf - paragraphs 31.6 to 31.9 and 34.