Guideline 1 Appendix B - In Globo Fees For Grants of Aid

In Globo Fees For Grants of Aid Appendix B		Guideline: State Number: 1 (Appendix B) Effective Date: 01/07/07
All grants of aid made will have an in globo fee limit placed upon them. The Commission will not pay any account which exceeds the in globo fee limit unless an extension of assistance has been granted. The following in globo fee limits will apply unless good cause is shown to vary, and prior approval has been given to charge an hourly or other rate.
Supreme Court
a.	Plea of not guilty, fee on brief to include preparation and first day's hearing	$1,390.00
	Per day thereafter	$870.00
b.	Plea in mitigation - includes taking initial instructions, appearance on committal, further attendances on client, preparation and waiting time	$612.50
c.	Bail Application	$373.75
d.	Lower Court Appeal	$1,205.00
e.	Court of Criminal Appeal	$1,975.00

Court of Petty Sessions
a.	Plea of not guilty - fee on brief to include preparation and first day's hearing	$1093.75
	Per day thereafter	$750.00
b.	Plea in mitigation	$375.00
c.	Plea in mitigation and restricted licence	$500.00
d.	Restraint Order (plus reasonable costs of service)	$437.50

Family Law Costs
The Commission is presently committed to the concept of " in globo " fees. It is of the view that the advantages of such fees outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages are seen to be as follows:
1.	The amount of administration necessary to process accounts is minimal. The reduction in costs achieved frees further funds for use in grants of aid.
2.	Accounts are processed faster - this Commission already sets the national benchmark in this area. Faster processing will result in faster payments to the profession.
3.	The Commission is able to more accurately determine its future liability and therefore efficiently plan the future use of its financial resources.
4.	The practitioner is informed at the outset of the matter as to the remuneration to be received thus minimising the administrative burden inherent in recording work drawing bills etc. Further the possibility of later dispute is significantly reduced which is both time saving and cost efficient.
The Commission is conscious of the criticisms of an " in globo " fees structure. The assertion that the foundation of such schemes must be an average cost of trials is flawed since most matters do not proceed to trial and the following scheme is far more flexible based as it is on the discrete stages of Family Law matters as determined by the Family Law Act and Rules and the administrative arrangements adopted by the Family Court.
The Commission believes that the " swings and roundabouts " approach overcomes most other objections. This approach is based on the Commission's experience of some 20,000 plus grants of aid since its inception that approximately 80% of cases are run of the mill and these more than make up for the 20% which take an unexpected turn.
This approach means of course that the practitioner is paid the fixed fee whether the work is completed or not. This may render the Commission subject to criticism on the ground that as a publicly funded body it should not remunerate for services not actually provided. Again, the Commission believes that the " swings and roundabouts " approach makes this criticism much less compelling.
Finally the Commission seeks to allay any concerns that this scheme would lead to lower standards of work from practitioners who would seek to cut corners to see a matter resolved when the " in globo " fee has been exhausted. The Commission is of the view that such criticisms are only valid where the fee is set too low. The following fee structure has been arrived at after extensive discussion and analysis of the procedures of the Court. The Commission is confident that the fee structure represents an adequate level of remuneration for experienced and efficient practitioners.
Family Law Fee Structure as at 1 July 2007 - 49kb PDF file (12 pages)

Page Last Revised :Wednesday, August 01, 2007