The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The Legal Aid Board (LAB) has admitted to getting its sums wrong in the amount of costs it is seeking to recover from a divorcee six years after the costs were taxed.
Pauline Fawzi divorced her husband Mohamed Faisal Fawzi in 1987 but racked up legal aid costs of over £12,000 in dozens of court hearings over custody of the children, ownership of the house and maintenance payments.
When she won the house Mrs Fawzi, a nurse, could not afford to pay back the LAB out of her earnings so the LAB followed its standard procedure of putting a charge on her house so that when she sells it, the money will be recovered.
However, her ex-husband, a doctor in Fife, Scotland, was ordered to pay two-thirds of her costs for one part of the court proceedings and all her costs of a separate High Court appeal - the total sum was £5,193.
An LAB spokesman said that there seemed to have been "confusion" on both sides about what costs the two-thirds had applied to.
Mrs Fawzi thought that the two-thirds applied to all her costs and that her ex-husband therefore owed her £8,000. The LAB at first agreed. Chief executive Steve Orchard even wrote to her MP last July agreeing that Mr Fawzi owed £8,000.
However, the LAB now says that the two-thirds reduction only applies to part of her costs. Interest is added onto the charge on her house and she now owes the LAB about £13,000 in total.