As a request I am reposting this to the top of the site.

Whenever I shout (tutor a training session) nowadays I refer both to this place, with the resources available on the side bar, and to the Peer Review guidance available from the IALS. The latter has been pretty difficult to access here - by the way of finding an old archive story. This fact and phone requests for navigation assistance to the document suggest that consolidating this towards the top of the site makes some sense. So here, and to include the other available resources are the -

Crime

Mental Health and

Immigration

guidance documents.

Happy reading.

The end of another week; a cost appeal written, Counsel briefed on another, action taken on 2 CCA appeals, two training sessions delivered (one more to follow this p.m.), two mock Peer Review samples partly reviewed, a pyrrhic victory in an Internal Review and as ever countless miscellaneous phone enquires - including of the Carter based Samaritans type. Plus I'm having lunch with a client two days in a row which is a rare treat - not just the food, but the chance to chat in general about the state of things.

Yesterday it was with someone I've not seen for 3 years who has just begun to do a bit of Legal Aid work again after a similar period of absence. It's a degree of distance which places the current regime in sharp perspective making for a degree of relief at not currently being in charge of a law firm.

Today I can guess the tone of the conversation in advance, it has been the same for nearly 10 years. We will cover the difficulty of undertaking Legal Aid work in effectively an advice desert not least the ever present problem of recruitment. I will then bring them a message about Peer Review which they will not want to hear and the attraction of private client and commercial work will seem ever rosier.

Tonight I am going to my local to watch loud, live music.

You work for the LSC, your partner has recently had a new car delivered and you wish to avoid the accusation of sabotaging the work of your nemesis, if so you might want to have a look here. Scroll down to number 7 and consider the third bullet point.

Chivalry precludes me from telling what I called my wife when she did the very same thing, however suggestions for the most appropriate descriptive term for someone making this elementary mistake can be made below.

The return of Means Testing in the CDS is now within spitting distance and we can report a number of calls seeking advice in this regard. The current state of play regarding the eligibility calculator is as follows.

The Times discusses Carter, following the publication of the LECG Report, and suggests a possible cataclysmic outcome. The advert alongside the article is purely coincidental one imagines.

From our perspective, and confirming the central message of our recent Carter training session, the risks identified at paragraph 3.65 of the report chime in with our central concerns:

"The risks are that the new working practices requiring additional responsibilities such as more extensive planning, training and business management introduce costs that are not considered in the Carter report."

UPDATE

It has even merited a discussion on the Simon Mayo programme on BBC Radio 5 Live.

Friend of this site, Richard Miller from the LAPG, was very good we thought!

Nice to find tinternet access at a training venue, that said it is significantly harder than working at home base - I have just lost 15 mins typing.

This is the last of the Carter Comprehensive sessions, which is a relief given the amount of work stacking up in the office. Yesterday involved an emergency appeal against a CDS 7 reduction for instance, which throws plans for the remainder of the week out of kilter. Given the promises made during this consultation I had hoped that such crazy decision making was to be a thing of the past - not so. Again, is it me, or would you have automatically thought a 4-day trial was "out of the ordinary"?

With the Carter stuff coming to a close, and in true Forth Bridge style, TMT are just about to promote my next shouting tour. It is a rework of the very popular Peer Review course, though perhaps not sufficiently new to justify a second attendance for all but the very masochistic. Dates and destinations to follow.

Anon in the comments below submits this view of this recent event.

The show was conducted by Richard Collins and Crispin Passmore, various Legal Services Commission and DCA staff were also there to chat to attendees during coffee breaks.

Biggest losers, specialist Legal Aid firms who deal with Public Law or Community Law, who by the very nature of their expertise and specialisation, tend to deal with many difficult and complex cases, who under the new system will only get paid, the one size fits all price.

UPDATE

People at the Newcastle Carter session are reporting a less than convincing training session on means testing last night and also some tension at the Carter session in Lincoln. Nigel comments on his experiences above, which is worth posting here. Any other thoughts greatfully received.

I was at the same roadshow and for reasons that i won't bore you with had the doubtful pleasure of being at the "civil" and "crime" events. The atmosphere between the 2 was quite markedly different, at the "civil" it was more we want to get this right and we are listening to your views - yes I know it holds about as much water as " the cheques in the post " and " yes dear you look lovely in that new dress" but hey that was the tenure. With the civil meeting there was certainly far more animosity to the extent that everyone forewent coffee to "ask" more questions. Richard Collins was as ever "slick" Derek Hill far less so. I was assured it was a genuine consultation but in view of the fact that everyone who responded re the funding committee changes was against them but they went ahead anyway I have my doubts. All in all somewhat depressing!

Busy day yesterday and another day of shouting planned for today. This has involves a variety of matters, cost assessment appeals, advice on two CCA results and some preparation for later on this morning.

Perhaps most interestingly, well to us, are the two proposed off-site "file assessments" which have appeared in the last two days. Both involve a targeted sample of criminal files which plainly are looking at high cost PACE claims and the billing of certain categories of magistrates court cases.

Both involve trends or billing patterns easily discernible from management data such as the Contract Management Review Criteria. This reinforces the message that understanding the LSCs statistical take on your firm plays an important role in keeping you out of their cross-hairs.

Whenever I shout (tutor a training session) nowadays I refer both to this place, with the resources available on the side bar, and to the Peer Review guidance available from the IALS. The latter has been pretty difficult to access here - by the way of finding an old archive story. This fact and phone requests for navigation assistance to the document suggest that consolidating this towards the top of the site makes some sense. So here, and to include the other available resources are the -

Crime

Mental Health and

Immigration

guidance documents.

Happy reading.

VERA BAIRD, DOMINIC GRIEVE TO SPEAK AT LAPG CONFERENCE

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group is looking forward to welcoming Legal Aid Minister Vera Baird QC MP and Shadow Attorney-General Dominic Grieve MP to its Annual Conference, sponsored by Barclays Bank, in Cardiff on 6th October 2006.

The Conference, entitled "Mapping the Post Carter World", is a chance for practitioners to gain an understanding of the thinking behind the proposed reforms to the legal aid system, and to ask questions of the Minister and officials about their intentions. If initial responses from practitioners are anything to go by, it could be a very lively debate.

LAPG Director Richard Miller said, "We are delighted that Vera and Dominic have agreed to speak at the Conference, as it is an excellent opportunity for dialogue between them and the profession. The more that politicians can hear direct from practitioners about their concerns for their clients, the better."

Other speakers include Richard Moorhead, co-writer of the research paper "Demand Induced Supply?" which looked at the cost drivers in the legal aid budget; Geoffrey Robertson QC, human rights barrister and author of "The First Legal Aid Lawyer"; and Sir Michael Bichard, Chair of the Legal Services Commission.

Whilst on the training trail practitioner discontent is something of an occupational hazard. Yesterday I spoke to a number of people both unhappy generally and also bemoaning the fact they are "trapped" in the publicly funded scheme rather than doing more lucrative private client work.

As our friends at the LAPG point out we now have a new Chief Executive who needs to hear these concerns more than I do - especially those in the "fragile" parts of the market and are considering and escape route. For our part we will be happy to forward any such comments for those not wishing to do so direct.

The latest two PR results in confirm the difficulty of achieving a Cat. 2 "competence plus" outcome. Both come in a grade lower "threshold competence", which while sufficient for the current VHCC panel development are not enough to become an actual reviewer.

More reps to write then.

UPDATE

We hear about a further putative Peer Reviewer who fails at the final hurdle. It's now three in the last week.

It was almost a Carter special in the Gazette last week. A front page article deals with responses to the proposals, which continues in the letters. There is also coverage of a plan to pre-empt the establishment of a CLAN in London.

All of these chime in with the feedback we are getting around the UK.

The Response to the Consultation on the reform of cost and funding appeals is now out. It is an issue we have discussed before, most recently here.

The headlines - single adjudicators will replace three member panels and the automatic right of audience will likewise disappear. A full eulogy for the Cost Committee will follow.

I got the third degree at both Teesside (sorry Durham Tees Valley) and Heathrow Airports either side of yesterdays tour date.

At Heathrow bag drop I had the following conversation:

She "Do you have anything sharp in your hand luggage?"

Me "I have no hand luggage apart from this book"

She "Its a big book that isn't it?"

Me "Yes"

She "You could really whack someone over the head with that couldn't you"

Me "You can't even joke about things like that!"

She "Oh we don't care we're sick of all the changes"

She "You've not got anything concealed in it have you?"

Made up for the indignity of having to take my shoes off it did.

Whilst I'm on new things turning up on desks and the LSC web site here is Focus on CDS 20. Happy reading.

Am I right that suppliers have had this sent directly and so will know where their next report forms have to go?

This slightly Orwellian sounding form, otherwise known as the CDS 17 can be found along with the other new forms at the bottom of the right hand side bar. The new application forms CDS 14 & 15 are also there.

There are also some changes to the CDS 7 and CMRF forms too.

Further comment and guidance to follow in the days ahead. Happy filling.

UPDATE

We can now supply a link to this fairly important document too. Please let us know if and when Courts start to apply these standards.

We are having a Carter day today. What's one of those you might well ask?

Well Andy, Steve and I have as yet had no time to get together to discuss the proposed changes. So we thought a morning put aside to run through the various proposals might make sense. It is also an opportunity to begin to think how our support service will need to be changed to meet the new arrangements.

As I am once again late to the office and the gang is here already I better stop doing this and put my Carter head on instead.

One often hears stories of ageing footballers (yes I know cheeky @£%!&^*£) who no longer train between matches (famously the wonderful Eddie Gray). Instead they use the intervening period to recuperate. I am now like that after shouting sessions (training sessions for those new to this place). I did two such courses yesterday and then crawled around the M25, stop started up the the M1 before a swifter A1M and A19 return home.

My delivery curry (a chicken tikka karhi from highly recommended Cafe Spice of Middlesbrough) arrived at the exact moment I disembarked and I only just missed the start of the League of Gentlemen film on Film 4.

This morning I feel knackered and am already considering how soon I can begin the necessary programme of recuperation with my personal fitness adviser the lovely Stella. This does of course not come cheap.

Suggestions of other life renewing processes gratefully received.

If you remember this you might be interested in this update.

A4E (Action for Employment) are the firm to which we referred with regard to Leicester. They seem not to have bid for that project but as you will see perhaps remain in the running for Gateshead. It seems clear that interest in the issue here has dissuaded them from tendering - henceforth this will be know as the "Curse of Disclosure".

More seriously the distinct lack of interest these numbers demonstrate must be of concern to the LSC, despite their spokeswomen's valiant defence. They also suggest that Carters caution regarding the civil and family market is well founded and that bold market remedies like these might not be the way forward. With 70 more of these to float perhaps a strategy to utilise the skills of the pre-existing network, of specialist advice businesses, (called Solicitors) could be considered.

Meanwhile were there a web-cam in this office one imagines viewing scenes of jubilation seasoned with much relief.

As you may have gathered I spent much of this week travelling between training venues. It has also been a week that has required work in other areas of my role in JRS. Consequently, just like this post, it has required much dictation down mobile phone lines. I have done this on handset free in lay-bys, in motorway service stations, hotel rooms and now from one of those modern coffee establishments old-timers like me fail to fully understand (why is there no such thing as a standard white coffee anymore?)

That aside, today I had some good news. Our second longest contract compliance appeal concluded positively yesterday with the client firm returning to Category 1. This is a victory for common sense which has been very happily welcomed by the firm. It is also worth mentioning the significant contribution to this result made by Mr Nicholas Armstrong of Tooks Chambers in London.

I now am off to my training venue, having also spent 20 minutes on the phone with a paranoid senior partner who is extremely nervous about his Peer Review sample. Hopefully today I have been able to put someone’s mind at rest.

With any luck I will by typing tomorrow’s post at my desk in sunny Middlesbrough.

I have posted previously about my unease in accepting positive training course evaluation. I have likened this to when guests praise a meal you have made and subsequently confide in their partners on the way home that it was truly awful.

TMT Training, who we are working with at present, do evaluation differently to us. Their form involves many fewer tick boxes and a bigger, more inviting space for individual comments. The title quoted above was the generous view of one of yesterday’s delegates. So here’s to the remaining 5 venues.

By the way, I have to say that re-generated Cardiff is really very impressive and that I nearly got involved as an extra in some BBC Wales filming (Doctor Who?) on my way back to the hotel last night.

I begin my Autumn (yes Summer is officially over at JRS) training tour today - well at least the travelling. The first lucky delegates get to see the show tomorrow.

If you have not seen the itinerary here it is:

Cardiff - 5/9/06

Newcastle - 26/9/06

The course is a 6 hour one called "Carter Comprehensive" jointly tutored by yours truly and Rodney Warren. It looks good on paper we will try and provide a review later in the week.

For further details contact timtmt@btinternet.com

A commenter asks for a link to the revised proposed fees referred to in this article.

Here it is.

I have expressed my pessimism about the chances of making successful Peer Review representations before. I've just had a call saying that our most recent appeal (and strongest to date) has failed. I have taken to reading out some of the findings which are deemed "major areas of concern", to training delegates. Generally to incredulity.

They now walk a 6-9 month tightrope before a second and final assessment.

Just to cheer people further our latest Immigration CCA appeal has only moved 6% on review and will now require a Cost Committee hearing. (The savings on extrapolation are significant however).

I feel much more like this than this.

This Gazette article covers the issues discussed here.

Later in the same publication a friend of this site gets a letter published.

What have they done with that photo though?