Away for another training day and so much happens.

First we win a "2 strikes and your out" Internal Review of a Termination Notice. A very interesting determination indeed.

Second we get our hands, by chance, on some very interesting average cost information. It should be invaluable if you are currently arguing over average costs with the LSC. (We've had more reports of this it must be a national intitiative).

Finally we are very heartened by this. Knowing some of the people involved it seems an excellent result all round.

A little discretion is needed regarding all the above however for more info on 1 & 2 get in touch.

By chance, and a third party, I received a copy of the LSC’s latest consultation document Making Legal Rights a Reality. You can read the associated press release here.

They don't seem to be posting it to firm's, you can however download it from their site. The early impression, on a quick scan of the document and summary, is an emphasis on "joined-up working" with other agencies to provide a "seamless" service for clients currently falling through the advice net. The strategic vision for individual, independent Law firms is less immediately clear.

As ever your take on this initiative are welcome.

We have notification of a further firm under scrutiny for PACE average claims. Further to Andy's comment below it does appear that there has been a software update (or some training on how to use it) followed by a decision to chase 'out of profile' firms.

Let us know if it impacts upon you - you can contact direct or use the comments box remaining anonymous either way if you prefer.

We are becoming increasingly pessimistic about a change of heart from the powers that be regarding competitive tendering. If we are correct then price based bidding will soon become a reality. Have a look here.

The first question is "can you compare your firm's performance to these stats?"

If not you will need to - and soon. If you are using our CDS 6 Wizard the answer is YES. Get your free copy today.

In a post entitled NfP (not for profit) below we discussed an interesting development regarding reporting the statutory charge in tailored fixed fee cases. The LSC seemed to be advocating an approach which, in certain circumstance, meant that they were enforcing a charge against the client which is more than they were paying the supplier.

This now seems to have been confirmed in correspondence between a client of ours and their Regional Office. They are considering an Internal Review. We will keep you posted.

Any other profit making initiatives which could assist in supporting the CLS/CDS should be posted in the comments boxes we will forward them to Grays Inn Road.

Training all day again tomorrow - places are still available. The course went down well in Leeds and once more reinforced our concerns about how difficult it is for the busy practitioner to keep up with the constant barrage of change.

I intend to try a first, and do a remote post from my hotel this evening, for consumption tomorrow morning. In the meantime has anyone else come across the types of letters described 3 or 4 posts below?

Normal service will resume on Friday - perhaps with something a bit light-hearted for a change.

We have been a little bit tardy bringing to your attention the Governments proposals regarding a “Fairer Legal Aid”. This is the outcome of FLAR. Lord Falconer's headline commitment is:

"The Government will take steps to address the disproportionate amount of money spent on defending high-cost criminal cases and redistribute funding so that all criminal cases are dealt with swiftly and fairly and ensure greater flexibility to provide more civil help and advice to those who need it".

The full set of proposals (and much more) can be found here. There have been cautions welcomes from the representative bodies. If nothing else more change is on the way.

No new post today as we are preparing for the start of the mini training tour tomorrow (see below for details, places still available). If you've not seen them yet however do read the two entries below on the new compliance checks emerging last week.

Similar early morning emergency calls, two days running. Coincidence? Or is there something afoot?

Part deux involves the civil Tailored Fixed Fee scheme. See if you can guess what the LSC want to discuss this time? Click below for the answer.

Yep you were correct. And we quote:

"In accordance with Paragraph 7 c of annex A of A tailored Fixed Fee for Civil (Non Immigration) Controlled Work we can amend the TFF rate for those categories where you actual average costs in 2004/2005 are more than 20% lower than your Tailored Fixed Fee".

What we have called the "high resolution microscope" is now clearly in operation in both schemes.

Again an essential protective measure is access to, in an easy to analyse format, all your CMRF data. We have a sister product to our CDS 6 Wizard in the form of our CMRF 6 Wizard. This too is FREE and available from the Middlesbrough office.

Keep us in touch with similar developments nationwide via the comments box. N.B. you can comment anonymously should you prefer.

UPDATE:

A second client from the same Region has received an identical letter today. Is this a nationwide initiative?

This is not a political blog however we felt compelled to demonstrate some solidarity with those affected by last weeks events in London. We came across this image with a request from its creator to post it to web sites today. We include it here as a mark of respect from all at JRS.

We have, this minute, received an urgent advice call. In correspondence this morning the firm in question has been accused, by their regional office, of being a "high cost" PACE provider. The allegation is that they are in the top 10%, on average, of CDS suppliers in the investigation class of work. This we imagine is determined by one of the SOOPER reports which generate league tables of "out of profile" suppliers from the grading of CMRC data.

The LSC want to meet to see how this might be resolved.

Our advice is to meet fire with fire and to respond with detailed stats and to demand the LSC's background data (using Freedom of Information provisions if necessary). Their immediate task is to get their CDS 6 data into an IT format that allows detailed interrogation.

We have banged the drum about our CDS 6 Wizard for some time. It remains the best vehicle we have seen to allow a robust response to the LSC on such issues. IT IS FREE and vital to all modern interaction with the LSC. Get your copy today from the office. Details on the left.

Peter Thubron & Co., a specialist CDS supplier from Sunderland joins the links box. That makes it 1 each in the Tyne Wear derby. Will it be a Mag or a Mackem who scores next?

Another good resolution to a CCA appeal has been notified to us.

We became involved post Cost Committee to advise on possible Points of Principle. It was an "extended sample" audit (50 or more files from memory) which ended up a tiny amount over 10% and in Cat. 2. We first checked the outcome and found a typo on the agenda document and therefore the CC's determination. In our view this indisputably showed the firm had been allowed an extra 3 hours by the CC on this case and hence were in Cat 1. The LSC, unsurprisingly, said this was not so and the determination supported the lower, original interpretation.

Cutting to the chase - following a myriad of letters and a threatened Internal Review the matter was remitted to a new CC. (Even this was not without an argument about the agenda of the proposed CC hearing). Finally, some months later, this CC determined in the firm's favour on the substantive assessment. They are now Cat 1 again.

And the moral of this story - never give up!

Two new names on the Firms Links bar.

Freer Bouskell we have known for years, we helped them through the franchise process sometime ago. They are a general practice in the centre of Leicester.

Halliday and Reeves are specialist Immigration providers in Gateshead and regular attendees of our training events.

If you want your firm linked and a quick name check just send us your details.

A distant Cost Committee hearing (10 am on Monday morning, they don't let up do they) meant no new post here yesterday. This was a new venue and again the differences in approach between regions are striking.

I am now firmly of the opinion that CCs are not the place for Contract Compliance appeals to be resolved. Its not that I don't trust other Legal Aid suppliers to make fair judgements, such people would have to be involved in any replacement, it strikes me however that CCs are a body designed for a different age. If anyone out there is interested I'll expand on these thoughts in greater detail however I thought I'd try and elicit some comments on the issue first. I'd be especially keen on views from CC members who I am sure must share some of our frustrations.

Two quick points to get the ball rolling;

There is no procedural rulebook and the Contracts have tried to keep pace by piecemeal amendment.

All the key precedents, bar a couple of recent ones, relate to a time when appeals dealt with a single file provisionally assessed down - not sums of money which could potentially bankrupt firms.

There is plenty more I could say but lets here your experiences in the comments box.

The new Supervisor course got a road test on Friday. Yes that's right someone wanted three hours of LSC related training, in this heat, on a Friday afternoon, rather than heading off early to the nearest pub with a picnic table! (The real meaning of the old Legal Aid logo?).

Despite this it was well received by a firm clearly shaping up for the next set of challenges - peer review, output funding, competitive tendering, preferred supplier etc. Surprisingly the non-supervisor legal aid fee earners seemed to get something out of it.

Places are still available for the public performances in the next few weeks (see below). For further information use the contact details to the left.

Some day I will write the whole story of the CCA appeal with which I was involved yesterday (the reason for no new post here). It is a Wagnerian epic, however I will spare you setting it to music and the caterwauling that might follow. Today I only want to reflect upon one element.

This was a unique Cost Committee hearing where the agenda was entirely de novo findings made by the CC at a previous hearing. So for a change it was not me and my clients arguing against the LSC but rather against the tribunal itself. I turned up half expecting to be in a somewhat uneasy alliance with the LSC presenting officer. Why so?

The LSC had made an assessment, hence the appeal. They had reconsidered this assessment when our written representations were presented and again on preparation of the agenda document. In short they had at least 2 if not 3 opportunities to get it right.

The CC clearly thought they had not done so and made a series of further, adverse (that is more draconian than the LSC) observations. I naively imagined that the LSC might wish rigorously to defend the integrity of their auditors and the consistency of their audit practice. Not so.

Ah you are thinking they maintained a dignified and professional silence. Not so again. Their representations on the day were to endorse the CCs new findings contrary to their own thrice made assessment so as to achieve a higher audit rating and recoupment.

I call this "opportunism" you might have other descriptions!

We are notified that an outstanding, certified Point of Principle concerning the operation of Civil Rule 2.15 and Criminal Rule 1.10 - "General Findings" and extrapolation - is now awaiting determination by either the Cost Appeal Committee or Contract Review Body. (We are unsure why the latter tribunal might become involved however).

It seems that we are not the only case in this bundle and others will be presented en masse. It appears to be an attempt to run to ground this highly controversial contractual provision and the associated cash recoupments.

It is an understatement to say that this is of general importance to the profession, we alone know of a number of firms awaiting this determination so as to resolve outstanding financial issues with the LSC - many of some magnitude.

If you too have an outstanding PoP, a pending CCA appeal or an unresolved "General Finding" (or even perhaps want to reopen one) please get in touch.

Did you see yesterdays post? Guess what training course we are delivering today?

This afternoon's course is not now just for the firm's billing team but for the entire Magistrates Court Department. It is another outing for our most popular course ever - "Criminal Billing for Dummies". Originally commissioned to that title (it was not our creation) it plays at least once a month, although it often seems more than that.

CDS reporting still carries a significant amount of risk influencing CMRC data, QPRs, audit methodology and now even Peer Review. Contract Compliance has not yet been ended in the criminal scheme either. Getting it right remains a key priority therefore.

So shutting down near on your entire criminal department for the afternoon, even if a large chunk of the course is mere revision, is perhaps not so dumb after all.

The LSC have finally called our bluff. Many of us have made the not unreasonable observation that all pre existing assessment methods are not qualitative. We are now faced with the "gold standard" of quality assessment - file review by specially selected fellow lawyers. Boxed into this corner how to respond?

The LAPG make some thoughtful observations here. We too have our reservations not least that some of our thoroughly competent clients have experienced the indignity of being deemed not so on assessment.

The primary objection would seem to be that this is practically little more than "transaction criteria" by Solicitor, rather than the original LSC version. Regardless it is clear that his will become a key element of the new audit regime and one that requires urgent consideration (today's files are next year's sample!).

To this end we are training on the issue at four venues this month. See below for details or contact us via the phone numbers or e-mail address on the left.

Your last resort following even a perverse Cost Committee finding is via an application for a Point of General Principle to Cost Appeal Committee. Not only do you have to identify a potential issue you have to get the Regional Cost Committee to certify it as a PoP - the Regional Director does not have this hurdle, s/he can self-certify. The certification process has proved very difficult. Cost Committees are generally reluctant. Moreover they are inconsistent. 2 of the PoPs we have had certified have previously failed on exactly the same wording in another region.

Today we celebrate a certification! Unfortunately this is only part of the way to a final determination by CAC and not the final result. It is also only regarding a fairly narrow point of Mental Health guidance. But what the heck it's worth one of these later today. We will keep you informed of progress.

A more significant PoP regarding "General Findings", or extrapolation as it's more commonly referred to, is also outstanding. If you are facing, or have suffered, a post contract compliance recoupment you might want to talk to us!

Our friends at Kirkpatricks in Cambridgeshire are the first firm to avail themselves of the "law firm links" sidebar on the site. Once there a single click takes a reader of this blog direct to your website. In part this might become a useful resource when seeking agency cover for a distant hearing. If nothing else it helps expand your web presence.

This invitation is open to all -- simply send your web address using our e-mail address in the contacts box, don't use the invite at the top of the bar, (setup glitch). We will also post a short welcome note when you join up.