It is a thoroughly Peer Review day here today. Andy and I are testing our consistency in arriving at categorisations and later I am off to talk to a North East firm about helping them confront this new assessment process. In the background I can hear Sandra talking to people about live file requests and the growing hysteria this is creating in certain practices.

I have also just received the latest Costs Law Reports publication which contains at least one interesting judgement relating to legal aid work which I will do a more detailed post in the near future (ASBOs and sentencing hearings in the Crown Court). If you can't wait give me a ring.

Here is a letter from Richard Miller I thought best to share with you.

Dear all,

I raised this with Crispin Passmore at the LSC, and have just had an apology from him for their error, but I am not aware of the LSC having done anything to alert people to this mistake.

I now have sight of the letter sent to those firms in line for a "priority" Criminal Peer Review. These firms have recently undertaken a VHCC under contract and therefore might reasonably be expected to "express interest" in membership of the new panel.

Carter is somewhat unclear about the final PR categorisation, the LSC less so. In this correspondence it talks of "when a 2 becomes the minimum requirements (sic), as the preferred supplier initiative is rolled out".

Between now and April 07 a 3 (threshold competent) is acceptable however you will have to wait until 2 becomes the necessary score before you can appeal - or rather make "representations".

It also confirms that there will be "2 peer reviews available in the preferred supplier scheme". So two bites at the cherry to get to Competence Plus.

If you are in the potential priority population but have yet to receive a file request do not worry this is to be undertaken with "no significance in the order in which suppliers are selected". Requests will be made on a "rolling basis over the coming months".

Use this time wisely.

Does this article suggest that the Carter tide is beginning to turn? Certainly Childcare lawyers might feel slightly heartened.

Who said a bit of old fashioned heckling doesn't work.

As anticipated here PR requests are hitting desks and consequently phone calls are coming through to JRS world.

The prospect of this new type of assessment does of course lead to a great deal of anxiety not least because it is effectively retrospective. There is also little one can do in the short period allowed to drag the files from archive, blow the dust off and DX them to the LSC.

Longer term there are a couple of things:

First you must have a good read of this.

Two, if you've not had one, give the office a ring for a brochure explaining our PR development service.

Finger crossing does not seem to work however.

Have just finished my first criminal contract compliance audit in some time. In many ways it is a classic of the genre. Out of twenty files it comes down to two proceedings class claims. One is an HSF reduced to an LSF on assessment, the other an unfortunately correct allegation of "claim splitting" (wrongly claiming more than one standard fee for a single case). We might just reverse the first, though it will be very close, probably, and again classically, it might come down to a couple of units either side of the lower limit. With the second case we have a convoluted technical defence which, hopefully, will succeed once again. Watch this space - in about three months time probably.

On a similar theme Andy recently spent a day with one of our most switched on CDS suppliers and identified a basic, and long-standing, billing error. Looking at yesterdays sample, and thinking of the above problem, the message, that near perfect criminal billing remains a major priority, still has a great deal of force.

Yesterday I got embroiled in business technicalities, banks, accountants, cars and the like. All the stuff I hate and know most of you do too. This has left me effectively a day behind this week, with a couple of deadlines looming.

The one interesting call of the day so far, not that enhancement and other CDS queries are not, is that the LSC are fishing for criminal suppliers to volunteer for early Peer Review. My caller is an SFP member and it might be that that is the angle here however it seems clear that wheels are in motion.

Any other examples will be gratefully received and reported.

UPDATE

All firms who have undertaken a VHCC in the last few years are to get this invite (some 400) firms and the acceptable standard will be 3 -

threshold competent

HAT TIP

The two Andrews.

Pull the curtains and hide behind the sofa the bailiffs are here!

A phone call with Andy, and one from a disgruntled CDS practitioner, shows that we are concerned with contract reconciliation matters today. And that's not all. Both Andy and Steve have been at this for a good part of the week.

We consequently sniff an LSC initiative! Why? well, both because of the number of firms suddenly facing SMP amendments, and the severity of interpretation of the numbers involved. (In the case I have before me they rely upon the harshest possible calculation of projected "overpayment").

As ever the perennial issue (to be resolved in their favour by Carter proposals) of reconciliation percentage, where between 100 or 110% to settle, raises it's head. Todays example now allows a 5% carry forward, despite the pre CDS promise of 10%. We, to be reasonable, argued 7.5% in this case.

This might provide a bit of light relief from this.

If you you were concerned about this, read this and rejoice.

The moral of the day - Don't panic until you have to.

Just lodged a CCA appeal, did an IR yesterday, dealt with a panicky CDS lawyer and made a decision over Xmas party date and venue. I sit here with a bad neck waiting for Parcelfarce to deliver the next appeal trying to work on course notes for this.

Who says it all change!

Being a blog and not a national newspaper we don't give away free DVDs of crap films you don't want to see again. Instead we offer fantastic free downloads of precedent SQM materials.

Today we extend the Generators, Forms & Std Letters bit on the sidebar to include our standard job descriptions. You'll not get any work done today now will you!

We have recieved a result from the Manchester CC hearing mentioned here.

This involved, predominantly, two enhancements arguments, an issue we have discussed many times before, most recently in the context of the LSC's poposals for "reform" of the appeals process. (In this post we share some of our thoughts on this subject).

You might notice this assertion in the article:

"I wonder if someone directed - "allow no uplifts and leave it to Costs Committees to decide" and LSC caseworkers are just following orders?. I think we should be told.

Well on the basis of this latest outcome it seems we are not far from the truth, winning both enhancements as claimed.

I reiterate the substantive proposal regarding placing the LSC at risk as to costs as the most suitable remedy to poor assessment decisions.

Have just had a call regarding a forthcoming Cost Committee hearing raising an issue recently encountered with the new Mental Health cost assessment unit. In both cases the Commission are insisting that the appeals be heard out of region - Liverpool for MH and London for Immigration. This can't be right can it? Has anyone out there successfully Internally Reviewed such a decision?

Think we might be just about to try.

The LSC has announced that the CDS Direct project is to be extended. This should lead to a projected five million pound saving. This is however a side issue and it is the welfare of hard pressed Duty Solicitors, "drained" by unnecessary middle of the night call outs which is of most concern.

We are opening a book on how soon this is to be "outsourced" to the Indian sub continent.

Regulars here will know that we refer to our CPD training activities as "shouting". If therefore you have been a recent "shoutee" you will possibly remember our advice to maintain a log of rejected and refused applications for substantive legal aid certificates (family and civil). There is, of course, a related CMRC indicator and now, it seems, this is something the LSC are interested in at audit.

Worth remembering that "reject" means a technical mistake on form completion and "refusal" for failure on merits grounds.

Start monitoring.

Andy has been audit sitting giving him the a good read of Focus 51. Click on the blue continue reading link to get the juicy bits.  
 

CDS Act - Update (Means Testing)

Training events are to be held in late August and September.
As well as training there will be an on-line calculator, wallet card and desk aid available.
An early cover scheme will be introduced to ensure that suppliers are paid a set fee for any preparatory work they do before the first hearing, provided that the interest of justice test is met and the application is submitted within two working days of charge.

Decisions on applications will be made within two working days
Appeals on the interests of justice criteria will be undertaken by the court in the same way it is now. The court will not be able to override the means test.
There will be a strict rejection policy for applications.
 
Reform of LSC Committees

Consultation period ended 28th July.
Response will be placed on web site shortly.
Looks like majority of committee members indicated they would be happy to sit alone.

Case Outcome Codes- Update

Review of codes ongoing by Peer Reviewers.
Both the Peer Review and File assessment tools will support the implementation of the revised coding arrangements.
The revised codes and guidance will be launched in April 2007.

Peer Review- Improving Quality

Similar guides to the crime are being prepared. These will cover the following category's of work

Debt
Housing
Employment
Immigration
Mental Health
Welfare Benefits

Why not Family?

These guides will be available from mid -August
Recruitment for peer reviewers continues in a number of areas, but not crime, Family is one.

Family- Help with Mediation is Available
 
There is a brief guide to how the scheme works. However it is worth noting that at present the Stat charge does not apply to the this funding but under the new Carter proposals it will !

Points of Principle

When Simon was on holiday I dealt with a client who had had a full Family Bill nil assessed as the proceedings had been issued in the county even though the certificate was limited to the proceedings being issued in the Family Proceedings Court.This PoP supports that decision.      
  

An early Law Society survey findings into practitioners thoughts on LSC/Carter proposed fee levels here.

HAT TIP

Anon in the comments box below.

For your entertainment, if you have not seen it already, here is a cartoon and a joke from the latest LAPG newsletter.

Many thanks to the artist, Jonathan Payne, for allowing us to reproduce it and also to Jane Hucknall for bringing it to our attention.

P.S. we know the text is usually directed at management consultants.

I had a day out of the firing line yesterday, to consolidate my reading of all the current consultation documents, in preparation for this. I was still unable to dodge all the phone queries, one of which included the first failed Crime CCA in some time. A couple of others related directly to my reading matter.

I spent a lot of time considering the LSC's subsidiary document, especially with regard to graduated fees. Now as I've indicated before the immediate feedback we have received to these proposals, despite their supposed "cost neutrality", has to date been universally negative. Indeed two firms have indicated up to a 60% disparity between current averages and those proposed. Now I have no way of immediately confirming this, in fact given the gradation, this requires data not normally collated by firms, and consequently a little bit of work. I can however not square my half a dozen or so initial phone conversations on the issue with what the LSC are saying.

Any thoughts gratefully received - we will forward them to the LAPG to help in their responses.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group has today launched a discussion forum
on its website for practitioners to share their concerns about Lord
Carter's reforms. It is available to anyone to contribute, not just LAPG
members. It can be accessed here

Director Richard Miller said, "It is vitally important that the
profession reads the Carter report and consultation paper and that
people share their hopes, fears and ideas about the proposals. This
forum gives people the chance to discuss the proposals with other
practitioners, and to influence the response of the profession's
representative bodies."

He continued, "The more information we have from firms about the way the
reforms will affect their businesses and their clients, the better we
can represent their interests in our response to the consultation and in
the ongoing discussions we will be having with the LSC and DCA in the
coming months."

LAPG is an independent grass roots movement, representing around 600
firms at the heart of the provision of publicly funded legal services.

Check this out if, like me, you need cheering up today.

We lost to the LSC - let us know of your own scraps.

HAT TIP

Anon in the comments.

If you have heard me shouting (training in JRS speak) regarding Carter you might recall my mention of the congruence with the training market. By this I refer to the delivery of Government training initiatives aimed at assisting the unemployed into work. I have a mate who has done this for years and have watched his increasing despair with policy development over a 15 year period.

If you have really been paying attention you might remember CLACs and CLANs. If you don't have the time to read the entire link these are the Community Legal Advice Centers and Networks which it is hoped will ensure delivery of Civil legal aid in the post Carter world.

How can these two paragraphs possibly interrelate you ask.

CLACs are being piloted in Gateshead and Leicester.

Yesterday we were made aware that a major supplier of training contracts in now attempting to make a tender for the Leicester CLAC and is inviting local firms to participate. We assume that ultimately this will involve a sub contractor arrangement with the training agency providing "management services" and presumably for a fee.

The shape of things to come?

We will see

Had a bit more of this this this morning. Plus more from the spambots!

The former leads me to re-link to this. Essential reading especially, obviously, for criminal firms but also it is helpful for civil practice too.

As for the spambots - there are a number of peculiar comments below obviously not from legal aid practitioners. These look fairly benign and lead to an Italian site clearly trying to boost its google ratings. Our wonderful techies are onto it and we are going to upgrade the software in the near future hopefully without too much disruption here but if so advance apologies.

Finally on the headline - Who would win in a fight?

Last week at work before a fortnight in the sun? Here it is your unputdownable, bodice ripping Focus 51.

With Andy on his hols it has been a bit like old times for me with regard to phone enquiries. Most of these are technical/operational and so go to the fieldworkers. I tend to get the serious problems which fortunately generates significantly less traffic. Currently, and not surprisingly, I also get quite a bit of "what does Carter mean to me?" type quizzing.

Right now I'm back in the world where the first and last hour of the day are given over to mobile. Today so far I've had Carter, contract reconciliation, Carter, defence costs orders, enhanced, serious offences claims, in the police stations and Carter.

(On top of that, at this place we've had a spam bot posting to the comments boxes which, given their content, needed removal. A time consuming and very boring process).

Given the weight of Carter queries you might like to be reminded of this and this. (Be patient with the downloads).

We have a new leader. Before you peek, have a guess where she comes from?

Thanks to Andrew Keogh in the comments below.

UPDATE

Richard Miller for LAPG comments:

"Ms Regan will be taking over at the LSC in the middle of the consultation on the Carter reforms. It will prove a real baptism of fire. We wish her all the best, and look forward to working with her to find a way forward that will enable solicitors to carry on providing their local communities with the services they need."

Of Brian Harvey's retirement: "Brian has been part of the LSC for almost as long as any of us can remember. He will be remembered for his commitment to clients, his no-nonsense approach, and his determination to try to find solutions, however uncomfortable they might be. I hope he will now enjoy a well-deserved rest."