The paper comes from a CJC costs working group chaired by Lord Justice Miles, according to the report’s membership list. Its members include Master Simon Brown, a costs judge, and representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society, according to the working group’s page.
Where the proposals come from
In May 2023 the CJC’s Costs Review Final Report recommended that guideline hourly rates (GHRs) be kept, with annual index-linked increases, and a fuller “Detailed Review” after five years. It also recommended four short-term changes. The working group was set up to deal with two of them: a new band for complex, high-value commercial work, and enabling counsel’s fees “to be assessed by reference to guideline rates, so that counsel are not treated differently in principle from solicitors for the purposes of costs assessment.”
GHRs currently cover solicitors and other fee earners only. The rates in effect from 1 January 2026 for the London bands are:
| Grade | London 1 | London 2 | London 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: solicitors and legal executives with over 8 years’ experience | £579 | £422 | £319 |
| B: solicitors and legal executives with over 4 years’ experience | £393 | £327 | £262 |
| C: other solicitors or legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience | £305 | £276 | £209 |
| D: trainee solicitors, paralegals and other fee earners | £210 | £157 | £146 |
A Band 1A above London 1
The working group’s proposed new band would sit above London 1, which covers “very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms”. Its working definition is: “Band 1A: extremely complex, high-value commercial and corporate litigation.” The report says that, if introduced, the band “would sit above, and not redraw, the existing bands”.
The group has not proposed any figure. It sent questionnaires to judges of the Business and Property Courts, Chancery Masters, Insolvency and Companies Court Judges and Costs Judges, but says the exercise “has failed to provide adequate evidence to enable us to reach any provisional views about the rates at which the new higher band might be set.”
The group is also divided. A majority considers there are sufficient grounds to seek evidence on how many cases would qualify and what is charged for them. A minority considers that the existing regime “allows sufficiently for departures in exceptional cases”, that there is no sufficient evidential basis for a new band, and is concerned that a new higher rate “would adversely affect access to justice.” Practitioners with evidence of completed inter partes cases in England and Wales where rates above London 1 were agreed or awarded are asked to submit it.
Guideline rates for counsel
On counsel’s fees, the group considers that introducing GHRs is “both possible and desirable”. It intends to draw on the Bar Council’s 2025 Working Lives Survey, which had 3,951 self-employed respondents, who reported hourly rates in nine £100 bands up to £1,000 plus a £1,000+ band, split between “commercial/chancery” and “general civil” work.
Consultees are asked whether those groupings and the survey’s seniority brackets suit GHR purposes, including whether King’s Counsel should be subdivided. The report also accepts that brief fees and refreshers are usually negotiated lump sums and day rates, and says any accompanying text should make clear that GHRs “may help inform, but would not necessarily dictate, what a reasonable brief fee or refresher rate may be.”
Next steps
Separate call for evidence forms are available for barristers and solicitors. The group will consider responses and publish a final report. Because cost guidelines are issued by the Master of the Rolls, its terms of reference state that the group “will produce recommendations to the MR in the form of a report.”