I have just sent in my latest contribution to Independent Lawyer. It is the last to be produced under founding editor Fiona Bawdon with whom we have greatly enjoyed working over recent years.
It remains an excellent publication well worth subscribing to.
Can we take this opportunity to thank her for her hard work and wish her the best in the future.
Regular readers might remember this story. We have just had the result in and this looks like a very acceptable outcome. We didn't win every point but were successful in overturning the "Singh" reduction, got back most of the enhancement and the disallowed attendance at the second post mortem. Oh and we got the costs requested. All in all a grand day out.
Update
Having read and considered the written determination three points stand out.
1 If you seek uplift for attendance at court with Counsel the attendance note have clearly to indicate the "exceptional" nature of the work undertaken i.e. it must be more than sitting behind and taking notes.
2 You can, if brave enough, attend post mortems.
3 The Taxing Master clearly sees an interplay in the application of Singh decisions between the grades of fee earners utilised and consequently the total claim.
If you want to discuss these more either use the comments box or give me a ring - the number is on the sidebar.
Today has been a real mixed bag of jobs. Looking at possible PoPs on an unsuccessful CCA appeal (yes we do have them), a client complaint going to an adjudicator and two firms experiencing financial difficulties.
Of the latter both are crime only, and hence Legal Aid only, practices. One of them is of a size which should be highly profitable and must surely be of the model the LSC have in mind for preferred suppliers. Whilst I will have some suggestions for a survival strategy one obvious conclusion is that basic rates are insufficient. An old and predictable conclusion that might be but it's one which I can only see getting worse as charging rates continue to erode in real terms.
It is some time since I've had a good study of a firm's financial performance and it reminds me of the times we've done more detailed and through business planning with clients. With PSS around the corner I anticipate this too will return to my working life once again.
The difference in interpretation of Contract between Regional Offices continues to surprise me. I'll save you the (somewhat dull) detail but how can polar opposites be argued at two different Cost Committees, 7 days apart, by LSC representatives?
Fortunately I only have 3 ongoing CCA appeals left (and hopefully not many more to follow) and so this unhappy period of relations with the LSC and suppliers seem to be coming to an end. Peer Review and Preferred Supplier to follow hopefully with some lessons learned.
The week begins with another piece of good news in the form of a further successful appeal against a termination notice. Do not however take this as a green light to go slow on franchise requirements, especially file reveiw.
Off south again later today for another appeal hearing tomorrow. Will attempt a post from the hotel but if not I will be back on Wednesday.
Yesterday I teed up a story about the LSC's latest gaff.
If you go here you can download a PDF version of the public information leaflet "CDS services at the Police Station and in Court". So far so good.
If you've done that and you are viewing on your monitor, as I initially did, what, you are probably wondering is the problem?
Clients of ours had hard copies of this leaflet on display in their reception. Had? Yes had - until they noticed that the solicitor featured in the main picture had a file cover clearly displaying the name of one of their main local competitors!
So is this what Preferred Supplier means then?
I shocked my wife last might with a story about the LSC. You must bear in mind that having lived with me for the entire period of my interaction with them this makes her somewhat unshockable. Consequently she is blase about massively wrong initial CCA categorisations and things like this. Indeed I was quite shocked myself that she was indeed so er, shocked.
The cause of this? Well if you can't wait until tomorrow ring me however I have promised to embargo the story until then. I do have to say in the age of Peer Review it is a howler of truly "failure in performance" dimensions.
Today should have involved a return to the Top 10% Club with a face to face meeting between us and the LSC. They however are double booked so I'm all back in front of the PC with a specialist fraud panel application to produce.
Yesterdays hearing ended with what might be a sensible compromise and an adjournment so more of that too later.
I'm also going to have another think about making the CDS 6 and CMRF Wizards on-line capable this afternoon. Watch this space.
Another week another appeal hearing in London to prepare for.
This is a fairly straight forward immigration CCA appeal (if there was ever such a thing). It is the one involving the issue discussed here.
I am still finding it hard to see how this has gone to Committee not least that the LSC's arguments as summarised on the agenda are so sparse; the notes in a foreign language are "illegible" and cannot be "compared" to Home Office record which is in English. Doesn't seem a very substantial argument to me!
Will let you know the outcome - and I shall be back here on Wednesday.
Earlier in the week we posed a question. For those awaiting the answer it is 8.1%.
That's right an initial audit rating of 84% reduced to single figures, an "acceptable" Category 1 outcome, on appeal. A massive relief for the firm but little compensation for the months of worry about the prospect that the practice, and the Partners professional lives, might have been destroyed.
In other CCA related results this week two good results.
The LSC have decided not to appeal a CC decision to refuse to extrapolate the audit findings and to limit the recoupment only to the files subject to reductions.
We also have two further PoPs certified which will now proceed to Cost Appeal Committee.
A home win, an away win and a score draw for those of you doing the pools.
I am away training today - "CDS Masterclass".
This remains our most popular course; a root and branch examination of the world of CDS billing and cost assessment guidance. It is a session which always finds its own level, from good basic training for new comers to CDS reporting through to more arcane discussion of points of principle.
Today is an in-house course for a large firm which makes a highly cost effective way of gathering CPD points. Others have "promoted" us, i.e. found a venue and sold tickets in the locality thus getting their CPD points either very cheaply of even for free.
If either option is attractive to you (both for this course or any others, especially Peer Review) contact Sandra at Middlesbrough.
On Monday I took a day trip to London - not to see the sights and experience the faster lifestyle down there - but to attend a costs appeal.
Planes, trains and automobiles later I land up in the reading room at the Law Society for a sandwich and a pre hearing discussion with my client. We are both a little apprehensive. The Supreme Court Costs Office at the Royal Courts of Justice does sound a bit grand for us provincial boys and it is, on both our parts, our first foray into this type of appeal.
The main point of this post is to put other potential appellants at greater ease. Far from the anticipated venue the office is a fairly nondescript modern one just off the Strand. The panelled chambers we foresaw turn out to be fairly regular ones not unlike those in your local County Court. There is even a lights system rather than an usher to alert you to your appointment time. The only really arcane element is the form of address for a Cost Judge, namely, Master. (We made slightly nervous private jokes about David Caradine in Kung Fu or Master Jedi Yoda) .
Most importantly we had a fair and friendly hearing/discussion with a clearly very sharp Costs Judge. There was no edge to this and it was pretty informal even including a couple of fairly light moments.
We await the result and will let you know of any interesting points.
Back from that London and the Supreme Court Costs Office - more of which tomorrow.
Whilst on my journey home we received news of a CC hearing which took place just before Christmas. I posted about it here briefly.
A sample of 20 immigration files was assessed by the national CC unit in London returning a Category 3 outcome at 84%.
The final result? - have a guess in the comments box - closest by Friday wins a bottle of wine.
One (free) working day to respond a two lever arch CCA appeal bundle so only a short post today. The main question raised in the appeal:
Are Home Office interview notes recorded in the asylum seekers first language "illegible", consequently inhibiting case progress ?
No post on Monday as I am off to London on a Crown Court taxation matter - more from Tuesday.
It's not made it onto their web site yet but this weeks Gazette confirms that the LSC have "delayed" competitive tendering. This they claim is to avoid a clash with the Carter review and to ensure consistency with its outcome.
Rodney Warren goes further and comments that price based tendering may now be sunk for good. Lets hope he's right.
We are back after the break, and a relaxing and extended one at that. Wishing a legal aid practitioners both a happy and prosperous new year always runs the risk sharp and sarky response nonetheless here's hoping.
I don't make resolutions at this time of year however here are three the LSC seem intent upon implementing which will have major impact on firms this year;
Peer Review
Preferred Supplier
The Carter Review
Make your own decisions to get moving in response.