It is this firms 10th Birthday tomorrow. I had been composing a longish retrospective post but now I've arrived at the point I don't really like its tone. That said I couldn't let this anniversary go unmarked. So I have few simple thank yous instead.

First, to all the JRS staff who have worked so hard and diligently over the years. The current team has been together for some time now but others have come and gone whose contribution should also be recognised. Heart felt thanks to all.

Next, to that select group of people at the LSC who have been fair, consistent and positive in their dealings with our clients and ourselves. You know who you are!

Finally to our clients. I think we have been blessed to have been able to work with such a fantastic bunch of people, some for nearly all of the duration. In that time we have fallen out with less than a handful and disliked even fewer. Many more have sadly, for a range of reasons, left the legal aid stage, the majority as a result of the never-ending change, intrinsic to the current scheme. The longevity of some of these relationships suggest that we have got something right with the services we deliver and ethos of the firm.

In July 1996 I had no real premonition as to what JRS might become, if anything the life it has developed is counter to the predictions made to the then bank manager. I therefore make no bold guesses about the next 10 years suffice it to say we wish all those we have come into contact with to date the very best for the next decade.

Have you been finding it harder to get extensions to Crown Court billing time limits recently? We have, especially retrospectively. Perhaps the reason is the case of R v Judd in the Supreme Court Costs Office. (Sorry cannot find a link on the web, we can however supply a photocopy by snail mail).

This case confirms that the civil and criminal schemes are "entirely separate" especially when comparing the more liberal civil out of time regime. It goes on to reinforce what we have always reiterated that "time can only be extended if exceptional circumstances are shown". In this case administrative errors were to blame and they we deemed not to be exceptional.

Get your bills in on time then!

Hat Tip
Nigel Ford

I tend to try and avoid politics on this blog but Gavin over here picks up on the recent "rebalancing" of the criminal justice system debate in two separate posts.

As Mrs Merton might say, "lets have a heated debate".

I've been told that this post is a bit obscure. To be clear we are running the Peer Review course again, by request, on Humberside and here are the details.

We intend to offer a more thoroughgoing PR development service for individual firms in the very near future. If you want advanced information give us a ring.

News of this years winnners is just in.

Congrats to all especially friend of this site Andrew Keogh.

Our friends at Independent Lawyer Magazine are organising this. I don't think I will have time to go which is a shame because I want to. If anyone is going and wants to write a review for the site let me know.

The Carter review continues to make the news and to stir opinion.

I just want to make one, and I suppose predictable point here. There is a fundamental conflict between increased profitability and quality, expressly Peer Review defined quality to a "competent plus" threshold. The greater "gearing" ratios the greater the supervisory requirements especially in the new Preferred Supplier model. It is here that "efficiency savings" can be made and here where lies the greatest risk to all concerned.

Apologies to the clients let down today because of my surprise present - a "full hospitality" day out here. Not sure it's the best day of the event though (but don't tell my wife that). This will probably mean radio silence on Friday too.

I have a good story about Points of Principle for you mutual anoraks on Monday.

BTW - the files did not arrive yesterday so boring day had by all.

I currently eagerly await the arrival of a pile of failed Peer Review files. Despite my creeping pessimism about the chances of making successful representations I am keen to get this job moving given an impending deadline, two days hols Thursday and Friday plus a busy week next week.

I have seen the report but not the files and it contains many similarities to previous negative outcomes especially advice recording in the Police Station. Unfortunately this - the only practical guide on the scheme by its creators - doesn't cover PACE.

More news on Peer Review next week.

Brian Harvey has been awarded one of these.

Via AK

The Law Society seem to have got their response to the Preferred Supplier Scheme about right.

They too spot the drift away from "low up-front entry criteria" implied by an increase in remote monitoring, Peer Review and file assessment. They also, again concurring with our experience, describe the last two elements as not yet being "sufficiently refined".

Problems with Relationship Mangers and the age old issue of schemes like this resulting in "spending more, rather less, unremunerated time meeting the LSC's requirements" are also covered.

Where we diverge are Devolved Powers. Most of the feedback we've received is the opposite - we would rather they made speedy grants of certificates and we faced less paperwork and the risk of retrospective sanction.

That aside sensible, measured analysis which will probably achieve little practical amendment to the proposals.

If you remember this one I am now off to the Vets again to be relieved of a large sum on money.

UPDATE

Another accurate prediction.

For the second time in a week its worth having a look at Marcel Berlins at the Guardian Blog "Comment is Free".

Its about hourly rates - before you read it have a stab at what threshold you would consider an appeal to a costs judge?

Just made good our promise to talk thorough Quality Profile Reports and Contract Management Review Criteria (QPR & CMRC) for those understandably bewildered by them. This was a case in point not least that one of the key failures showed more refused substantive applications appealed than actually made in the same period!

Unusually for JRS I managed to make someone express relief rather than despair. Try it out - just fax them through and see if we improve your weekend.

I don't imagine many of you will want to come however I really like the fact that I can save something as a PDF file so simply on a Mac and then link to it with ease here.

Being vain, check out the quotes we did not make them up!!

Question 1

The LSC have not advertised the vacant Chief Executive post in the Law Society Gazette. Is this because:

A. It is not a good advertising medium because people only read the SDT findings to see who has been struck off this week.

B. An advert in The Times meets their equal opportunity requirements and they have somebody lined up.

C. They are relying mainly on the use of head-hunters.

D. They are not looking for lawyers, or anyone like them for that matter.

E. All of the above.

So far we have received only one nomination for the Peoples Commissar for Justice, former LAB Leeds Area RD Glenys Stacey. Any further suggestions gratefully received.

UPDATE

An eagle eyed friend of the site has informed us that they advertised in the Gazette last week. WHOOPS. (It is towards the back and after the articles).

However for the sake of balance, we constantly criticise them for their mistakes, I will leave the offending post up rather than delete it. Look we make mistakes too!

And to the VIP who suggested I should apply this is another compelling demonstration (amongst many others) as to why I am not "demonstrably fit for purpose".

I have expressed my thought on training course evaluation sheets before. That said the individual written comments, rather than the tick box marking, from Tuesday confirm my (very modest) view that "Peer Review" is a good course. What is more, good or bad, it seems to be pretty much out there on its own.

With that in mind we now have a proposed date, Wednesday 19th July, for a return to Hull. We have a couple of firms "promoting" us by hosting the course and selling tickets locally - thus getting their CPD points for free. To quote the Boss "This guns for hire".

There are two very differing views on the current lenient sentencing debate over at the Guardians new blog. The first is from Jonathan Freedland the alternative Marcel Berlins.

My guess is most practitioners will agree with the latter.

UPDATE

Come on! There are 75 of you who have read this post and not one with an opinion?

Off to that London for more shouting tomorrow. This is the last of the PSS and Peer review tour.

More later if I can find a PC.

"Come on England".

In the language of spy movies this blog is not a secure channel of communication.

So to mystify the enemy here is a coded message.

Firms, ring us, CDS, audit facing.

That should do it. (If you don't get it ring us anyhow).

Especially if this is in your town.

This we have discussed before. Now things are going Public. Having finalised an appeal against the new "specialist unit" I have absolutely no doubt that the LSC are in the wrong and that this is an attempt do unto MH suppliers what they did to your Immigration colleagues. Good on the MH gang for sticking together.

No wonder they are looking for "braveheart".

The LSC are looking for a latter-day William Wallace to replace Claire Dodgson.

"So, 'braveheart' is most certainly required"

Gives Preferred Supplier a slightly different feel doesn't it!

For those of you, like me, still interested in the post read on:
 
"You are an unusual and rare individual. Private, public or not-for-profit by background, you know how to deliver transformational change because you have done it already - absolutely and successfully. Your leadership, communication and interpersonal skills are highly developed and natural and instinctive. Your political (big and small 'p') antennae and sensitivities are exceptional. Your automatic default is to be open and transparent with everyone. And people instinctively believe you, believe in you - and trust you."

Well I got YES on most of those - oh f**k, do you suppose this post will have blown it for me?

For the remainder of you, prepared to take the necessary pay cut, put woad on your faces and get involved in bloody, hand to hand combat, we do a fantastic free CV service.

The swearing speedily changed into smug satisfaction (and alliteration). And once again we are in the right.

Having recently paid a not insignificant sum to update (yet again) our CDS Claim Code laminates we downloaded this.

With the air turning blue we checked the large pile of laminates to discover that we had the correct wording and a trip to the skip was not necessary.

If you want a free copy contact the office and speak to Sandra or our latest recruit Joanna.

And here is the main Focus on CDS 19.

Anon makes an interesting comment on this thread. If you feel the urge to comment you can do as s/he has done and simply pick an alias and put a false e-mail address in that field.

Funny start to the week with work on two JRs which are bubbling away nicely and a third a twinkle in the eye of another litigious client (to mix the metaphors). As with all this stuff we are by necessity a little cryptic however what is clear is that at least a few brave souls out there are on the front foot. As ever happy to talk about these more confidentially and promise to tell you the news as it happens.

Later its back to CCA appeals and training prep for later in the week.

I know there have been a couple of cryptic posts recently and that this is another one but its just so nice to be told when you are right and the LSC is "wrong". This a finding on the consideration of a PoP by Cost Appeal Committee.

What is interesting is that no PoP was certified because the LSCs Corporate Legal Team did not oppose i.e. they agree with us that the Regional Office was "wrong". So why did this whole issue have to go into extra time and now onto penalties?

More detail when the final ball has been kicked.

And that's enough blogging for today down to some real work.

In March we had a lot of calls about driving test retakes. If you have not removed yesterdays Gazette from its plastic bag yet (n.b. don't place plastic bags over your head) you might not be aware that this is back on the agenda.

Peer Review, Carter, Preferred Supplier and now this. Time to revise you breaking distances!

This in the e mail:

We've just confirmed a new seminar with Lincoln House Chambers looking at 'the role of digital evidence in modern justice' - free session with CPD credit and a complimentary reference book for all delegates.

There's more info and a copy of the invitation notice available online.

If this site had a theme tune what would it be?