Editor’s Note

Care and supervision proceedings are among the most demanding areas of legal practice, both emotionally and procedurally. Yet the complexity of the work is not always reflected in how Legal Aid claims are assessed or paid. This article examines the most common billing errors in Care & Supervision Legal Aid claims and explains why perfectly legitimate work is so often reduced. The aim is not to criticise practitioners, but to highlight where good work is undermined by avoidable billing issues.

Common Billing Errors in Care & Supervision Legal Aid Claims

Care and supervision proceedings under Legal Aid are routinely described by practitioners as some of the most challenging cases they handle. The work is urgent, emotionally charged, procedurally intense, and often unpredictable. Despite this, billing for care cases is frequently treated as a routine administrative process rather than a specialist exercise requiring judgment and care.

As a result, many Legal Aid claims in care proceedings are reduced not because the work was unnecessary, but because it was poorly presented, inadequately justified, or inconsistently recorded. These reductions are often accepted as inevitable, when in reality they are avoidable.

One of the most common errors in Care & Supervision Legal Aid claims is the failure to record time with sufficient clarity. Attendance notes and time narratives are often drafted quickly, under pressure, and with the assumption that the context of the case will be obvious to the assessor. It rarely is. Legal Aid assessors are reviewing large volumes of claims and cannot be expected to reconstruct the nuance of a case from sparse or generic entries. Where descriptions are vague, repetitive, or overly abbreviated, time is vulnerable to reduction, regardless of how necessary the work actually was.

Closely linked to this is the overuse of generic wording. Care proceedings involve repeated hearings, conferences, and urgent communications, but that does not mean entries should be indistinguishable from one another. When multiple attendances are described in identical terms, assessors struggle to see progression or justification. This often leads to the assumption that work has been duplicated, even where it has not. The problem is not the work itself, but the way it is presented.

Another frequent issue arises from the way time is allocated to tasks that appear, on their face, to be routine. In care cases, tasks such as reviewing disclosure, communicating with clients, and liaising with other professionals are rarely straightforward. Files are often extensive, disclosure is ongoing, and instructions evolve rapidly. However, when time claimed for these tasks appears high without sufficient context, it can look disproportionate. Without explanation, necessary work is treated as excessive.

There is also a tendency for justification to be implied rather than expressed. Practitioners working in care proceedings understand why certain steps were required. They lived the urgency, the safeguarding concerns, and the procedural pressures. Legal Aid assessors did not. Where that context is not captured in the billing narrative, the claim becomes vulnerable. This is particularly true in lengthy proceedings where the cumulative effect of multiple small reductions can be significant.

Another common billing error is the inconsistent recording of fee earner involvement. Care proceedings often require collaboration between solicitors, senior lawyers, and support staff. Where multiple fee earners are involved, it is essential that the billing clearly explains why. Without that explanation, assessors may view the involvement of more than one fee earner as unnecessary duplication. This is a frequent source of reduction, particularly where attendance entries do not clearly distinguish roles or responsibilities.

The treatment of hearing time is another area where claims regularly fall short. Care hearings are rarely confined to the time listed. Preparation, waiting, post-hearing discussions, and urgent follow-up work are often essential. However, if claims simply record attendance at court without clearly linking preparatory and consequential work to the hearing, assessors may take a narrow view of what was reasonably required. Again, the issue is not the work, but how it is articulated.

Poor file structure also plays a role. Care & Supervision Legal Aid claims are often supported by large volumes of documentation. When files are disorganised, inconsistent, or incomplete, it becomes difficult to support the billing. Assessors are more likely to question time where they cannot easily trace it back to the file. This is particularly problematic during audits, where the standard of file management can influence the overall assessment of a firm’s compliance.

Another recurring problem is the assumption that Legal Aid billing operates on a purely mechanical basis. Some practitioners assume that if time is recorded accurately, it will be paid. In reality, Legal Aid assessment involves an exercise of judgment. Assessors are considering proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness in the context of the case. Billing that does not engage with those concepts, even implicitly, is more likely to be reduced.

Late or rushed billing compounds all of these issues. Care cases often conclude abruptly, with little time allowed for careful preparation of the claim. When billing is left until the end, context is forgotten, narratives are thin, and opportunities to justify work are missed. What should be a clear and persuasive claim becomes a bare record of time, stripped of the explanation that gives it value.

The cumulative effect of these errors is significant. Firms absorb write-offs that are treated as an unavoidable feature of Legal Aid work. Over time, this erodes the financial viability of care teams and contributes to wider concerns about the sustainability of public law children practice.

None of this suggests that care solicitors are over-claiming or acting improperly. On the contrary, most reductions arise from legitimate work that is poorly communicated. The solution is not to reduce the work undertaken, but to improve how it is recorded and presented.

Good Legal Aid billing in care proceedings requires the same level of professional judgment as the work itself. It demands an understanding of how claims are assessed, what assessors look for, and how to translate complex, pressured work into a clear and credible narrative. That is not administrative work. It is specialist costs expertise.

For firms practising in Care & Supervision proceedings, addressing these common billing errors can make a meaningful difference. Improved recovery, fewer disputes, and reduced audit risk all flow from better billing practices. In an area of law where margins are already tight, those gains matter.

The reality is that Legal Aid will never fully reflect the intensity of care work. But firms can, and should, ensure that the work they do is presented in a way that gives it the best possible chance of being properly paid. Avoiding common billing errors is not about gaming the system. It is about ensuring that essential work is recognised for what it is.