MoD lawyers soar as Armed Forces" budgets cut The legal wage bill reached more than £16 million this year, even as the MoD tries to cut eight per cent from its budget as part of the Coalition's cost cutting. The Commons Defence Committee has said it is so worried about increasing legal constraints on the Armed Forces that it is holding an investigation into the matter. Commanders fear a new wave of legal restrictions and law cases after a landmark Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that human rights" legislation applies to British troops on foreign battlefields. Julian Brazier MP, a member of the committee, said: "This sorry overhead reflects the fact that the legal environment for the Armed Forces has got more and more difficult and litigation culture is becoming more and more prevalent." The figures show 170 of the MoD's lawyers are paid more than £50,000 a year, or the same salary as at least a Major in the Army. Twenty of the lawyers are paid more than £80,000, or the equivalent of at least an Army Colonel or Navy Captain. As the number of lawyers has grown since 1999, the combined number of regulars in the Army, Navy and RAF has fallen from 209,000 to 171,000 at the same time. One senior officer said: "Throughout my time we have seen a lot of changes in the Army and the only constant has been a rising number of lawyers sticking their nose in." Senior officers and ministry officials said the legal landscape had "changed significantly" in the past decade, with a growing number of cases against the MOD. The military has also faced a series of extensive inquiries and investigations into alleged abuses in Iraq, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. An MoD spokesman said: "With a dramatic rise in the number of cases brought by human rights lawyers against the MoD we are increasingly having to spend taxpayers money defending the department and our military personnel. The MOD's legal costs represent around 0.1% of its budget - one of the lowest in one of the lowest in Whitehall. The MOD needs many different legal services to act on its behalf because of the huge variety of complex cases we engage in, ranging from public inquiries to common law cases, but of course we keep what we spend in this area under active review.