Funding

Funding

Charging for family law services

At the heart of any business is cash flow and the key elements for family lawyers are how much and how to charge for family law services. Neither the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) nor the Legal Ombudsman (LEO) have an expectation that low charging is better. Sound governance of a business means that a firm must be profitable otherwise, in the long run, unprofitability puts the business at risk.

When reviewing family work charges, the following key aspects should be considered:

•
the terms of business, ie the contractual relationship with the client
•
ways of paying for services, ie hourly rates, fixed fees etc, and
•
receiving payment for services

See Practice Note: Funding—charging for family law services.

Unbundled services or Pay As You Go

An unbundled service means legal advice provided to a client in a case where the client is acting in person. It can comprise a simple checking service, one off advice, the advocacy in a case, or a more organised Pay As You Go (PAYG) service throughout the proceedings. With the client acting

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.