Attorney General's £43m Legal Fee History Raises Questions Over Public Role

Lord Hermer who once commanded £43m 'success fee' now oversees pay rises for lawyers doing government work while backing £9bn Chagos giveaway

The recent revelation that Lord Hermer, our current Attorney General, was forced to reduce his "success fee" in what was dubbed Britain's largest-ever legal costs claim raises serious questions about his suitability for such a crucial constitutional position.

In a remarkable display of double standards, while Lord Hermer now oversees modest increases in government legal panel rates, his own past fee arrangements paint a picture of eye-watering excess. His team's original £105 million claim in the Trafigura case, including a staggering £43 million "success fee", was deemed so excessive it required judicial intervention to reduce it.

The timing of these revelations couldn't be more awkward. As Attorney General, Lord Hermer has just announced a 25% increase in barristers' government work rates — a necessary but modest adjustment that will see senior counsel receiving £150 per hour in London. This stands in stark contrast to his own history of astronomical fees, suggesting a "do as I say, not as I did" approach to public service.

Perhaps most concerning is the Trafigura case's aftermath. Despite warnings about potential fraud risks in the Ivory Coast compensation distribution — warnings that Lord Hermer himself received—thousands of victims never received their due compensation. This raises serious questions about the duty of care exercised in what appears to have been a highly lucrative case for the legal team involved.

For someone now tasked with being the government's chief legal advisor, Lord Hermer's past association with cases where lawyers were accused of "enriching themselves" at others' expense demands closer scrutiny. The contrast between his previous private practice earnings and his current oversight of modest public sector legal fees highlights an uncomfortable disconnect between his past actions and present responsibilities.

The Attorney General's role in the Chagos Islands debacle is particularly telling. While the Starmer government cloaks its £9 billion territorial surrender in the language of "legal compliance", it conveniently overlooks that the 2019 International Court of Justice ruling was non-binding. Lord Hermer, as the government's chief legal advisor, appears content to watch as Britain not only cedes sovereign territory but also burdens taxpayers with a staggering bill spanning nearly a century—all in the name of following a ruling that carried no legal obligation.

This capitulation to non-binding international opinions, coupled with Lord Hermer's own history of excessive fee claims, paints a concerning picture of an Attorney General who seems more attuned to legal opportunism than protecting British interests. As Dame Priti Patel rightly points out, this combination of territorial surrender and financial burden sends a devastating message about governmental resolve. We must question whether someone with such a controversial track record of fee arrangements, now overseeing such a costly territorial capitulation, is best placed to safeguard the public interest in his role as Attorney General.