Andy writes;
This week JRS has seen a hive of activity by the LSC's Newcastle, Nottingham and Birmingham offices. This activity has been in the form of quite informal on site audits. Two were in the guise of KPI audits the third a control audit.
All three however had a common theme, which was the auditors deep interest in the firms future plans, commitment to Legal aid and plans for expansion. This seems to coincide nicely with publication of the consultation paper for the Civil Bid Round 2010. Discussions were also undertaken with regard to the construction of league tables. Is this a watered down preferred supplier scheme? We will keep you informed.
Also there has been a little inconsistency with regards to advice given on end points, especially when considering the end point for " Client ceases to give instructions". It was suggested by one area office that if a letter was issued to the client stating that the fee-earner presumes everything is in order due to lack of communication and if not to get in touch that this can justify a positive outcome.
We have always advised that fee earners can not presume anything but need to obtain clear instructions from the client as to the position before a positive outcome is recorded. This was the position taken by the Nottingham area office.
It is clear that firms need to ensure that they have a pro active approach at the conclusion of cases and that sufficient contact details are obtained from the client at the outset in order that constructive and effective attempts can be made to contact the.
Finally one thing that was clear and consistent across the audits was the auditors contentment when suppliers could talk intelligently and informatively about contract performance, especially when firms could show that they have the ability to analyse the billing information and therefore clearly answer any concerns that the auditor had. For two of the firms this was down to the fact that they have used our CMRF Wizard and we will encourage all of you out there to do the same or some equivalent.

I have heard accounts of this "verbal evidence" re. end point on countless occasions. Why they do not simply make the end codes more sensible and transparent, as they promised at the last review, rather than have this convoluted situation is beyond me.