The guideline hourly rates for solicitors remain one of the most frequently contested aspects of legal costs. While the rates provide a benchmark, they are not intended to operate as a fixed ceiling. In appropriate cases, uplifts can be justified, but only where they are properly evidenced and clearly explained.

From our experience, the key to securing an uplift lies in understanding how the courts interpret the guideline hourly rates, how they interact with proportionality, and what evidence is required to move beyond them.

The status of the guideline hourly rates for solicitors

The guideline hourly rates are issued as guidance, not tariff. They are designed to assist judges in assessing reasonableness, not to replace judicial discretion.

The most recent update guideline exercise followed extensive consultation by the Civil Justice Council, under the leadership of the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, who also acts as head of civil justice. The revised rates, introduced in January 2026, reflected economic data including inflationary pressures and movements in the service producer price index.

Importantly, the guidance itself recognises that there will be cases where the guideline rates are not appropriate.

When an uplift may be justified

An uplift on guideline hourly rates for solicitors is most likely to be justified where the work undertaken goes beyond what is reasonably contemplated by the guideline bands.

Common examples include:

• cases involving unusual complexity or novel points of law,
• matters requiring specialist expertise not reflected in the guideline assumptions,
• cases with significant reputational or commercial importance, and
• litigation requiring sustained involvement from senior fee earners.

The court will not allow an uplift simply because higher rates are charged internally. The focus is always on the reasonableness of the rate for the work actually undertaken.

The importance of fee earner expertise

One of the most persuasive factors in justifying an uplift is the experience and expertise of the fee earner involved.

Courts are more receptive where the work is carried out by:

• highly specialised solicitors,
• senior litigators dealing with complex procedural or evidential issues, or
• legal executives or solicitors whose experience significantly exceeds the norm for their grade.

What matters is not job title alone, but the level of responsibility and skill required. An uplift is far more defensible where it can be shown that deploying a less experienced fee earner would not have been appropriate.

Evidence, not assertion

The most common mistake we see is reliance on assertion rather than evidence. Statements such as “the rate is justified due to complexity” carry little weight on their own.

Effective justification should include:

• a clear explanation of the issues that made the case exceptional,
• evidence of the fee earner’s experience and role,
• comparison with rates allowed in similar cases, and
• explanation of why the guideline rate would undervalue the work done.

Judges are far more likely to allow an uplift where the reasoning is transparent and supported by the facts of the case.

Economic context and the Service Producer Price

Economic context also plays a role. The service producer price index was a key factor considered in the most recent revision of the guideline hourly rates. While this does not automatically justify uplifts, it provides a useful backdrop.

Where work spans a prolonged period, or where there is a demonstrable lag between economic conditions and the applicable guideline rates, it may be appropriate to argue that strict adherence to the guidelines would undercompensate the solicitor for the work undertaken.

Proportionality remains central

Even where an uplift is justified in principle, it must still pass the test of proportionality. Courts will consider:

• the value of the claim,
• the complexity of the issues, and
• the importance of the matter to the parties.

An uplift that results in costs becoming disproportionate is unlikely to be allowed, regardless of the expertise involved.

Practical guidance

To maximise the prospects of securing an uplift:

• identify early whether the case genuinely warrants rates above the guidelines,
• ensure time recording accurately reflects the complexity of the work,
• be realistic about which work truly requires senior input, and
• frame the argument around value and necessity, not internal billing practices.

How ARC Costs can assist

ARC Costs advises solicitors on when and how uplifts on guideline hourly rates can be justified. We provide practical, evidence-led guidance on presenting enhanced rates in Bills of Costs, Points of Reply and at detailed assessment.

Our team assesses the experience of fee earners, the complexity of the work undertaken, and proportionality to ensure any uplift sought is realistic and defensible. We also stay closely aligned with developments from the Civil Justice Council and recent guideline updates, helping clients advance credible arguments that reflect current judicial expectations.