Civil legal aid consultation: Seraphus’ reply

Over the past eight weeks, the Government has invited legal professionals and organisations with interest in Civil legal aid to take part in a consultation on proposed reform to the legal aid structure and fees as a apart of a Review of Civil Legal Aid. 

Seraphus has chosen to make a submission to this consultation because we believe meaningful reform is not just necessary — it’s urgent. Legal aid is a cornerstone of access to justice in the UK, yet years of neglect and chronic underfunding have left the system unsustainable, under-resourced, and unattractive to legal professionals. While the proposals in this consultation acknowledge some of these challenges, they fail to deliver the scale of reform needed to reverse decades of decline. Without significant investment and structural change, the legal aid system will continue to deteriorate, making it harder for those in need to access immigration advice and representation.

At Seraphus we have chosen to enter the legal aid space because we see it as an essential tool to deliver on our wider mission: supporting those in need through our legal work, particularly in collaboration with charities and grassroots organisations. However, legal aid, as it stands, is a loss leader for us. The current fee structures make it economically unviable, forcing providers to subsidise their work at the expense of long-term sustainability. The sector cannot rely on goodwill alone; proper investment and reform are necessary to make legal aid both socially valuable and financially sustainable. This consultation provides an opportunity to address the most pressing issues in the legal aid system, starting with inadequate fees, restrictive eligibility criteria, and outdated service requirements.

While the proposed reform to legal aid acknowledges some of these issues, the proposed changes to fees fail to address the fundamental issue of sustainability. 

The current fee rates do not reflect the complexity and time required for immigration cases, making it difficult for providers to recruit and retain skilled professionals. A minimum hourly rate of £75-£80 is necessary to align Controlled Work with Licensed Work and ensure fair pay. The suggested 10% fee increase is not enough, as it builds on historically low rates. Instead, fees should rise to at least £78.70 per hour to cover the real cost of providing legal representation. Without this, fewer professionals will enter legal aid work, worsening shortages and making justice harder to access. 

The proposed simplifications to the fee system do not go far enough, removing the outdated graduated fee system and fully harmonising fees is necessary for fairness and sustainability. These inconsistencies place additional burdens on legal aid providers, discouraging them from taking on more cases and ultimately harming those who rely on the system for support.

Expanding the scope of legal aid is just as important as increasing fees. If providers are still restricted in the types of cases they can take on, the system will remain unsustainable. Broader eligibility criteria and greater flexibility in case selection would improve efficiency, ensuring more people get the legal help they need. A system that supports early intervention and resolution would also reduce the burden on courts and lower public costs. If the government is serious about ensuring access to justice, it must go beyond fee adjustments and address the structural barriers preventing legal aid providers from offering the services that clients require.

Further, restrictions on remote legal aid provision create unnecessary barriers, particularly in legal advice deserts and rural areas where access to in-person services is severely restricted. Providers should be able to decide whether remote or in-person services best serve their clients. A fully digital system could improve efficiency and reduce bureaucratic obstacles, with safeguards in place to ensure private, accessible, and safe environments for in-person consultations when needed. These could include assessing client needs during onboarding, reimbursing travel costs, and carrying out compliance audits.

Finally, the requirement for a permanent office is outdated and unnecessarily restricts providers from offering flexible services. Keeping an underused office adds unnecessary costs, taking resources away from frontline legal work. Removing this requirement would enable legal aid providers to adapt to client needs through mobile, hybrid, or remote services. In-person legal advice could still be provided as needed, but with greater flexibility to meet clients in accessible, private, and safe spaces.

Seraphus believes that the current fee proposals do not go far enough to fix the long-standing challenges in legal aid funding. A revised approach—one that includes higher fees, expanded eligibility, fee harmonisation, and greater service flexibility—is essential to creating a sustainable legal aid system. Without these changes, access to justice will continue to decline, leaving vulnerable individuals without the legal support they need. The government must use this opportunity to create meaningful change before the legal aid system collapses further, ensuring justice is a reality, not just an empty promise.