I say almost because it is inevitably frustrating when you have to use the best part of a day proving the obvious. Constructive - they, the LSC, have gone away with no concerns about the firm's control of PACE costs and probably with an enhanced view of its management systems.

We slaved over a hot computer, whilst the senior caseworker looked at files, and were above to provide most answers required by way of some very compelling stats. (All this was down to having all the claim data in the CDS 6 Wizard). These included an indication of a clearly reducing average cost, good details on differing fee earners, especially agents, and a range of other comparisons including patterns of bail back cases and frequency of attendance at particular Police Stations. There were no significant findings on the 10 files assessed.

No further action is the outcome so a worthwhile day.

Just been assisting clients prepare for a High Cost PACE audit tomorrow. We've got some strong arguments not least a trend line on a graph showing the firm reducing the average over the last 18 months. There are loads of other things the stats say too. All this is possible because they use our CDS 6 Wizard. Get you copy free from the Middlesbrough office.

The sport we will be able to have tomorrow is however too enticing and I have decided to show up and offer some moral support. Full report to follow.

I once ate out with a client who ended up paying £600 rather than £60 pounds due to an error with the credit card machine. They spotted it before we left and put it right.

Something similar happened to a client firm last week. They were told they were nearly £40k in deficit on their contract and as we know reconciling these by next March is currently an important corporate target. An hour later we whittled this down to less than £10k.

Make sure you check the numbers before agreeing to a reduction in SMP.

I read this on the front of this weeks Gazette.

I must not make fun, these are people with jobs and mortgages.
I must not make fun, these are people with jobs and mortgages.
I must not make fun, these are people with jobs and mortgages.
I must not make fun, these are people with jobs and mortgages.

But on the other hand - it looks like a long period of "natural wastage" and face it they show little or no compassion when making decisions with the same effect on law firms.

In the modern world there is of course only one way to achieve these savings.

LSC X Factor.

Week by week audit and assessment practice is assessed by a panel of Judges (I'd do it) and then a final decision on who to eliminate goes to local legal aid practitioners by phone poll.

If it came down to a final head-to-head showdown I'd also know "which act I was sending home" and who I'd keep.

Any alternative ideas on enlightened redundancy policy should be placed in the comments boxes.

For the third time since August the office broadband has crashed. I feel slightly strange saying this but the resultant break in contact with the rest of cyberspace is like the loss of one of your senses.

Apologies to those waiting for e-mail replies, a phone call or snail mail is most likely to elicit a response at present.

If you are considering your own office situation you will not hear us recommend BT - we are currently switching to NTL.

By way of a bit of light relief from Peer Review back to high cost PACE claiming.

We heard yesterday of a firm who were told, following an onsite assessment of about half a dozen files, that they would be in Category 2 or 3 were they to receive a CCA. Apparently some files were over claimed and some the reverse.

The suggested way forward?

Verify all your PACE claims for the last year or face the aforementioned CCA. Fortunately for all concerned the author was not present at this meeting.

Somewhat unsurprisingly we return to Peer Review although in a somewhat more positive vein. As promised we have now amended our standard File Review forms to assist in PR preparation. We have amended the "substantive review" element of the various forms to incorporate the relevant PR criteria. This means we have 3 file review pro-formas available:

CDS Crime
Crown Court Crime
Civil (called CLS on the form)

These are available free from the office by phone or e-mail request.

There is an interesting discussion on Jury trials taking place here.

Follow the comments and join in.

Update

If the above link does not work try http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

Fog stopped play. Or at least it stopped me taking my flight yesterday evening leaving me a "free" day.

I will therefore focus my attention on a Peer Review appeal (or representations as they are called). Having scanned the final report, in the absence of the files, I have to say it seems to set the bar very high, especially regarding PACE recording and the use of standard letters.

Posts here last week did inspire some phone calls and this was a common thread. One hopes that there is an understanding that it will take some time to establish some consistent results and an appropriate National Benchmark.

Had a fantastic autumn drive over the Pennines to see clients on Friday (hence no post here). We met to consider a fairly unusual form of appeal of which I will spare you the details. I have a standard CCA hearing tomorrow.

I am often struck by the intransigence of the current day LSC and how sensible negotiated solutions seem to be impossible to reach. Tomorrows case might end up with further adversarial exchanges despite transparent errors on the part of the LSC.

Consequently I have a long journey, an overnight stay and a sad commercial traveller meal to look forward to.

Saw Paul Weller warm up the Newcastle Ice Rink last night - very good too!!

This put me in mind of solicitor musicians of whom I know a few. In fact I am due to see "Rocky Defence and the Mitigations" in the next couple of weeks though I'm a little worried that the name might be better than the music.

Anyone know a better name for a lawyer based group?

Continuing with the theme of the week, and breaking the run of good luck, we have had our first request to assist with a Peer Review appeal. Knowing the firm and files I am very surprised by the "below competent" outcome, but then I'm not a peer reviewer. That said I doubt there is a peer reviewer in the country who has looked at as many files from as many firms as I have over the years.

I have a strong impression that we need to run the "Are you Competent?" course some more, especially remembering that competent will not be sufficient for Preferred Supplier status. We can do this very cost effectively for groups of local firms (some have even made a profit by "promoting" the event). Anyone interested should contact Sandra.

We are also very keen to hear of firms experiences of this new assessment either directly or through the comments boxes below (you can remain anonymous). A "data base" of findings will be essential to successful appealing we suspect.

By coincidence an immediate follow up to yesterdays post presents itself.

Anyone who has been on one of our recent courses will be aware of some of our more worrying experiences of Peer Review. One example, from the pilot scheme, involved a senior family practitioner judged to be "below competent". Our concerns were further raised when the same firm received an early request for files once the scheme had moved out of pilot.

They have today received the results which are "competent plus". As you will probably be aware this is the place in the league table you have to be to participate in the Preferred Supplier Scheme.

Congratulations are in order.

The finalised Peer review scheme is now explained here. This page on the web site also contains the "criteria" for civil and crime.

We intend to change our file review forms to incorporate these changes - if you want a copy give Sandra a ring in a couple of weeks.

Friday's post encouraged a couple of phone calls. Both were positive and from people who have managed to ensure that their contracts are reconciled to 107.5%. One of these has the feeling that this commitment has actually disappeared from contract. I will check this later.

As indicated yesterday there is quite a bit of, presumably corporate target instigated, activity to reconcile contracts by March 06. We are currently running a couple of IRs in this regard one with an interesting "entire agreement" point arising out of Tuckers & Others arbitration result on cost neutrality.

We have also had a number of phone calls on the subject. Of particular interest to CDS suppliers is the issue of to what percentage the contract should be balanced. It was one of the selling points of the new scheme that firms would be paid up to 10% more than their contract payments to compensate for the WIP impact of the new scheme. The firms we are speaking to are being told that their contracts must absolutely balance and the 10% is not to be allowed.

Anyone out their with similar experience and perhaps a positive outcome?

We obviously are resisting this.

Last weeks first chance to argue about General Findings before the CAC/CRB achieved only minor changes - a promise of further guidance on CC powers. It is to be hoped that this will be made available to all appellants from now on. There is however an acceptance that individual files can be excluded from samples and thus extrapolation and that if CCs have misdirected themselves in this regard, perhaps on advice from LSC committee clerks, there is a possibility of reopening the decision.

Ring up to talk this through if it affects your firm.

Events have conspired against being able to give a comprehensive report on a recent CAC/CRB hearing. The headline news is however that we do not have a breakthrough on the application of General Findings rules. More later in the week - off on a very cheap flight to London now.

Day on the sick today so nothing of substance I'm afraid. I am slightly cheered by another CCA result turning a Cat 3 into a Cat 1 however.

I was interviewed yesterday by an academic involved in a research project on Legal Aid regulation. It proved a fascinating hour and a half.

Of most interest was that she has independently arrived at our conclusion that this is the last generation of "craft lawyers". This is a theme we have (over)stated for some time to juxtapose the delivery of legal advice to the need actively to manage franchising and contractual matters.

Of course the advent of Peer Review alters this balance creating the need for "craft lawyering" to be evident from case files. It doesn't however remove the need to focus upon the regulatory requirements. Indeed if this weeks evidence, from someone engaged in an appeal against a PR result, is anything to go by it is franchise style file management issues (or a file beauty contest as he called it) which will make the main difference between competent and competent plus gradation.

Consistency of approach, between fee earners and across departments, has always been a franchise requirement. It tells an auditor something about overall management control and commitment to the standard.

Two recent appeals have been in Regional Offices where you attend on the day files and representations in hand and get your afternoon before the Cost Committee. (In one of these offices they copy the contentious documents - insufficient attendance notes etc. - into the agenda document).

Tuesday this week another Regional Office, at some distance from our northerly outpost, informed us that we could not have the files back before the hearing to allow us to prepare. They would however allow us to attend at thier office to view the files, in situ and they would make space available for us to do this. To be fair to the LSC on consistency this is an argument I've had before with another RO.

Further correspondence, and objections, later we are advised that they will photocopy the files and send us the copies. I nearly responded with an insistence on receiving the originals whilst they retained the copies but had run out of energy by that point in the day.

What they think we would do with the files is beyond me, we have also never failed to return files to the Commission by imposed deadlines.

I am alone in finding this ridiculous? And does it really have to be such hard work?

Perhaps consistency across ROs does not form part of the ISO 9000 standard.

A flurry of appeals (well 2 in 2 days) in the South West has occurred. Both to be heard on the same day too. We have also discovered that you can fly from Leeds Bradford thus avoiding that terrible c. 5 hour return drive.

More distant travel on the cards.

We now have a short summary of the Criminal Contract changes available, anybody interested should ring Sandra at Middlesbrough.