Costs News

03 March 2017
go back

ACL Training appoints BPP University founder as first chair

Leading legal educationalist Professor Carl Lygo has been appointed as the first non-executive chair of ACL Training (ACLT), the Association of Costs Lawyers’ independent training arm.

Professor Lygo is founder of BPP University, where he is the Vice-Chancellor and also chief executive of the multi-national BPP Professional Education Group.  He will be chairing the management board of ACLT, the sole provider of the Costs Lawyer qualification, which also runs training courses for ACL members and for the wider legal profession.


Carl will be working alongside the current executive team, led by head of education Kirsty Allison, to ensure that ACLT continues to provide top-quality training for students, Costs Lawyers and other legal professionals, and to further develop the ACLT offering.


A qualified barrister, Professor Lygo has three decades of experience in legal education, mainly in the training of solicitors and barristers. He taught law at Leeds University, Leeds Metropolitan University, City University and London Guildhall University before joining BPP Law School in 1996. Under his leadership, BPP was granted ‘university college’ status and in 2013 full university status. In 2009, Professor Lygo was appointed group chief executive officer for BPP Professional Education, which currently provides professional education in 186 different countries with employees based in 56 countries.


Professor Lygo says: “My passion is the education of the professions so when I knew that the ACL was looking for somebody to help with the development of their legal education arm, I thought this was a natural fit for my experience.


“I am incredibly impressed with the work that Kirsty Allison and her team at ACLT have been doing. I think I can help take it to the next level and make use of my general business experience to develop ACLT further.


“Over my three decades in legal education, the professions have always faced massive change. We now face a cocktail of change from the regulatory side, technology and civil procedure reforms/fixed costs. Education plays a vital role in equipping the next generation with the advanced skills to confidently meet those changes and prosper.


Francis Kendall, Vice-Chair of the ACL, says: “Carl has an excellent reputation in the field of legal education and training and has had great success in turning BPP Law School into one of the country’s top legal education institutions. ACLT will benefit from his huge academic and commercial expertise.”


Professor Lygo has held a number of non-executive roles, including appointments by the Lord Chief Justice to the Judicial Studies Board advisory committee and the General Chiropractic Council.



For further information, please contact: Kerry Jack, Black Letter Communications

Tel: 020 3567 1208,

Notes to editors:

Association of Costs Lawyers

The Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) is a membership body representing and promoting the status and interests of Cost Lawyers in England and Wales. Founded in 1977, the Association was granted authorised body status in 2007 and is a front-line regulator, able to authorise its members to undertake the reserved legal activities of litigation and advocacy. In recognition of this new-found status, ACL changed its name from the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen in 2011. Costs Lawyers are regulated by the Costs Lawyer Standards Board.

The term ‘costs draftsman’ denotes an unregulated and unqualified person operating in costs and those who instruct costs draftsmen have no recourse to either the Legal Ombudsman or the Costs Lawyer Standards Board.


Sue Nash   25/09/2017 at 20:56

It appears that RNB is set for a HC appeal - watch this space! Meanwhile, RIP Solicitors Journal which - sadly - has just ceased publication after 180 years

News Flash   28/09/2017 at 12:18

Another pointless case, why resist a payment on account when your paying the opponents costs in the end anyway? these types of disputes should be a thing of the past!

MB   05/10/2017 at 13:18

Why has the focus returned to the SCCO "going completely digital". Was the electronic bill not extended to all Courts!

Dragon   12/10/2017 at 13:40

Well said Jim. Too often we see clinical negligence claims settle for say £2k only to be followed by a bill for say £50k. Thankfully there are some excellent costs lawyers out there who battle those costs down, but the situation remains outrageous.

Simon Mccarthy   13/10/2017 at 13:56

Dragon - your comment overlooks the fact that it is almost invariably your clients - the Defendants - who cause those scandalous costs by intransigently, and inexplicably, refusing to come to the negotiating table until too late, when the costs have already been racked up; it is their failure to take a realistic view to claims at the outset which necessitates the costs. This faux horror is therefore hard to stomach, especially when one considers the equivalent costs being incurred by government bodies (funded by us tax payers of course) often to the tune of 4-5 times the sums you mention, and the many Defendant costs draftsmen shelling peas for their piece of the pie. Sadly, it is the same old story of 'pay peanuts get monkeys' and, unless and until government wake up and start paying competent people to deal with claims pragmatically, the UK public purse will continue to haemorrhage billions of pounds that we can ill afford. Still, as long as it keeps Defendant costs draftsmen/lawyers in business?....

Northern Costs Monkey   13/10/2017 at 14:31

Just shows how ridiculous the whole budgeting process is. The reason firms generally don’t make applications to revise their budgets is because the bar set for varying them is absurdly high. No one even knows what a “significant development” is. A load of nonsense in my opinion. The situation we have now is that firms just don’t bother revising the budgets because in all likelihood it won’t be accepted. Meaning firms can be stuck with an “approved” budget that is a couple of years out of date, was drafted before the directions were even agreed, and is no longer fit for purpose. What should happen is that budgets should be drafted after the first CMC, and there should be a rule put in place that parties are able to freely revise a previously agreed or approved budget every six months, regardless of significant developments, with the updated budget to be considered at a costs management conference listed for a later date. That after all was the whole point of budgeting, was it not? Pragmatic costs management?

Simon   16/10/2017 at 16:47

I find this whole issue completely unnecessarily. Independent Midwives had commercial insurance suitable for their needs, however to try and save money they chose to try and become self-funding and cancelled their insurance without fully understanding the risks and exposures. I cannot see why it is in the public interest to bring a JR (and why the costs should be capped) when commercial solutions were available, however the issue is that as a group they didn't want to pay the costs of commercial insurance.

Dragon 2   18/10/2017 at 08:07

Great points Simon. Fully agree. Courts are fully aware of how these matters are conducted by those representing defendant. Surely though the money for damages and costs comes out of the medical suppliers' insurers' account, not tax pot nor nursing fund. Maybe that's why there is such a drive to extend the fixed costs regime to clin neg claims. Just a thought......

Mel B   19/10/2017 at 12:05

'Like' Simon McCarthy's comment

Cath Hart   21/10/2017 at 09:32

In reply to Simon's comment (which I thought at first meant this situation could be resolved) my understanding is that professional indemnity insurance for independent midwives has been withdrawn, but even if available the premium would be in the region of 20-30k annually (reference so I would disagree that it was cancelled to "save money" - these premiums exceed many of the midwives salaries so it was simply unworkable without government assistance. When professional indemnity insurance became mandatory under the EU directive in 2014 the independent midwives did appeal to the government for funding but this was rejected due to the low number of women involved so was not thought to represent value for money for the taxpayer. (reference:

Add your comment

go back