The response does however confirm that they should, in crime at least, provide a "positive balance of 7.5%".

This is a quote from this post below.

Today we had a rare visitor to the pulsing heart of the JRS Empire - Queensway House. She was a somewhat perplexed visitor having just been told by her Account Manager that her Criminal SMP needs reducing by around 40% for the rest of the year. Having made an attempt to understand this claim she was seeking an impartial eye on the situation.

We have just run the numbers on a worst case scenario basis i.e. we have anticipated likely claims at end March 07 on the basis of the lowest likely average billing for the remaining 5 months. If they achieve this, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not, they will be left with with a "positive balance" of 1%. This if the SMP remains the same.

If the SMP is reduced in line with the Account Managers proposals this will generate a "positive balance" of 10% - but in favour of the LSC - 17.5% worse than the "CDS GCC Monthly Payment Rules 2002" provide for.

Remember "we are in this together"!

This assertion - that we are all in this together so must work together - is the "overall message", spoken in a "conciliatory tone", by the new LSC Chief Exec Carolyn Regan at the end of a double page interview in this mornings Gazette. Now I have not met Ms Regan, nor seen her in action, and I certainly do not envy her in the current climate. She has also only been in post for a couple of months and has yet not even been able to complete her planned tour of the Regional Offices. One cannot therefore expect her to have a fully rounded and nuanced overview of the LSC's role in the current process of change, just yet. She might also have been quoted out of context and neither is it a radical message - we have heard it before from LSC people. To hear it repeated at this time does however drive me mad.

Why so? It is essentially nonsensical, purchasers and suppliers have often diametrically opposed aims and concerns which will inevitably lead to disagreement and conflict. Why can the LSC not simply admit this obvious state of affairs and move away from this bland PR strategy - nobody involved really believes it anyhow. This is not advocacy for an adversarial relationship, no one wants that, but lets have one, a relationship that is, based on an honest appraisal of the aspirations of these fundamentally different types of organisation.

Central to this, it seems to me, is the need for a fuller acceptance by the LSC that Law firms are legitimately profit seeking concerns (resentment in this regard still persists even at quite senior grades in the Commission). What the LSC are engaged in, much of it equally legitimately, frustrates this. The gulf in mindset between civil servant and business people remains vast and I have witnessed little evidence of any attempt to bridge it. Certainly Ms Regan's message does not.

Empathy with such concerns remains in short supply and this is made worse by the significant inequality in arms between the Commission and suppliers. If she had said that her overall message was "a new regime of professional, partnership working with law firms" I would still have been sceptical however not maddened.

Rant over. Back to the special features notices.

Here is the CLSA's response:

Lord Carters direction of travel has today been identified by the Department for Constitutional Affairs as the Way Ahead.

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association, along with other organisations and individuals, submitted a very detailed response to the recent consultation, contributing to the more than 2000 responses received, the vast majority of which cast great doubt on the best value tendering market model upon which hopes are now based.

The CLSA has been campaigning for change to the legal aid system for many years. Lacking long term direction and constantly the undervalued Cinderella of the public sector we have seen a failure to invest in the future result in radically reduced availability of legal advice to the most vulnerable.

Speaking today, CLSA Chair Ian Kelcey said:

Changes must be made across the CJS as a whole to eliminate wasteful operational methods and unnecessary bureaucracy. Steps in that direction would make a real difference. Fixed fees for doing a job where the other parties involved are inefficient or even obstructive are no recipe for a quality legal aid system.

The Lord Chancellor has told solicitors to knuckle down. That is unlikely to encourage practitioners to want to move towards change and may well be seen by the profession as insulting. They are already angry at the disastrous way in which means testing in the magistrates courts has recently been reintroduced.

Mr Kelcey added:

These proposals will not deliver a long term sustainable future for legal aid.  The timetable envisaged is unreasonably short and is more about saving money than ensuring the process works.

As ever the LAPG get their retaliation in first:

The Governments announcement following consultation on Lord Carters reforms amounts to no more than a stay of execution for legal aid firms, according to LAPG Director Richard Miller. Vulnerable clients can have little confidence that they will be able to get the legal advice they need in the future.

 
Miller said, The changes that have been announced are welcome, and give vital extra time to try to bridge the gulf between the profession and the Government. In particular, we welcome the acknowledgement that the proposals for family law need substantial revision and further consultation. But the DCA has not given ground on some of the most serious flaws in the proposals.

 
There is no understanding of the problems of fixed fees in social welfare law cases. The swings and roundabouts firms are supposed to rely on do not exist. Fixed fees penalise firms doing more complex work, and doing work for client groups with particular needs and difficulties, just as much as they penalise inefficient firms, if such an animal still exists in the legal aid system. The result is that many of the most experienced and skilled lawyers undertaking this work will be lost to the system. Advice deserts will worsen, and many more clients will be unable to get the help they need.

 
There is no polluter pays mechanism. If solicitors have to work on fixed fees that are calculated on the assumption that the system runs smoothly, there has to be direct and immediate compensation when it does not. When the CPS has lost the file, when the prison delivery service turns up four hours late, when the police officer is not there for the bailback, in every single case the solicitor must be compensated for the additional costs caused. Otherwise the business model for undertaking this work is seriously undermined; and if the business case does not stack up, it is once again the clients who will suffer.

 
Most significantly of all, the Government is still insisting that there is no more money for legal aid, despite the additional burdens the Home Office in particular has put on the system in recent years. The Government is right to say that this country has one of the best-funded legal aid systems in the world. It is something that should make us all proud. But the Government is demanding about 3 billion of work for its 2 billion, and that just does not work. What limited scope there is for greater efficiency cannot come close to plugging this gap. This stone is out of blood. Practitioners are voting with their feet because they cannot make a viable business of providing this service on the financial terms the Government is offering.

Here it is - Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead. Just published, off to read it, more thoughts later!!

UPDATE

October Revolution

I have scan read the document which is frankly disappointing. Whilst not "full speed ahead" the only significant concessions are on the implementation timetable or by making earlier proposals subject to a bit more "consultation". The overall "market based" approach is endorsed with Peer Review as the central quality determinant (although imposition of "competence plus" as the required threshold has been put back, especially in line with Preferred Supplier). Perhaps the best exemplar of this is Annex C which indicates which bits of Carter are "Accepted" or "Not Accepted". Out of 55 recommendations only 2 are in the latter category.

The two key ideological elements remain Output rather than Input funding (fixed and graduated fees) and Best Value Tendering. The first date for the latter, in crime, is set for October 2008 with the earliest proposed activity - new mags. standard fee proposals - is due for publication next month. It is on the move then.

There is a further brief summary here.

Use the comments box to air your views.

Yesterdays penultimate Cost Committee hearing may well not be that with perhaps two more remaining. (Todays was cancelled yesterday afternoon leaving me with a free day).

It was quite a low key affair with the now standard panel of two and no presenting officer as all five cases were CDS 7 matters. Felt we got a fair hearing which will one bit missing from the new schema.

In that regard it looks like the result I mentioned yesterday is not as draconian as reported to me by the firm (read the paperwork first yourself before blogging in future then Ed.) It looks as though s/he seriously thought about allowing less than the assessor, thinking the enhancement allowed "generous" but did not do so. As indicated yesterday I think that this possibility must surely lead to a reconsideration of CRIMLA 28 and 53 especially in light of R -v- Bhatti [2006] 2 Costs LR 356. Any comments very welcome and if you'd like a copy of that case give me a ring.

As I head to what I hope will genuinely be my penultimate Cost Committee hearing we receive the first outcome of an appeal sent to an "Independent Funding Review Adjudicator". The result is an alarming one for those who questioned this change in procedure and the loss of the right to a hearing.

The first main concern is that the file has come back "de novo" reduced below that originally allowed on assessment. This process has of course been a key tactic used by the London RO in Immigration CCA appeals and one subject to much previous argument. We will once again attempt a point of principle this time backed up by the fact there is now a supportive case determined in the Supreme Courts Costs Office.

Secondly, and right to the heart of the changes, these new findings, made by the IFRA represent fresh points to which the firm have no right of appeal. In these circumstances they do not even have the chance to raise immediate objections during the course of the hearing. It also seems to me entirely outwith the requirements of CRIMLA 28.

By spooky coincidence we have received an Internal Review result related to yesterdays last post.

Unsurprisingly it does not go in the firm's favour, this despite years of mismanagement of the contract by the LSC.

The response does however confirm that they should, in crime at least, provide a "positive balance of 7.5%".

We have been notified of another Competent + PR outcome, well done to those involved. Buoyed up with this result I am about to look through another live sample. The other result seen today (competent) confirms all the advice I have been giving on the recent tour. I will summarise this on Monday.

Finally we get news of the first successful representations against a PR finding - lifting the aspirant solicitor up to Comp Plus grade he needs to join the panel. We offered some technical advice so can, at least in part, chalk this one up as a result.

All in all a day which confirms my pessimism on contract reconciliation (albeit with the 7.5% sweetener) but challenges my preconceptions on "burnishing" and the PR representations process!

I cannot vouch for the quality of this organisation having never used them. I do however have a great amount of respect for the man behind it. He was one of the few very good practice managers I have met over the last decade and he knows the business inside out. On that basis I would heartily recommend his firm and will put a direct link on the side bar when we redesign the site. For now the above will have to do.

So if you need transcription services give them a ring.

Finally all the best Mark!

The sheer weight of telephone traffic between us and clients over Contract reconciliation issues and Standard Monthly Payments (SMPs) convinces me we are in the grip of more than just one or two over zealous Account Managers. Recently we ran a successful Internal Review over the issue and have a couple teetering on the brink of this option. We are also helping a larger number work out the sums.

Whilst firm specific points always arise in these negotiations - exceptional circumstances, idiosyncratic billing patterns and future forecasts and so on, certain common factors persist.

Top of this list is the issue of what percentage the contract should be reconciled to. Now this goes back to the very beginning of contracting when the concept of an advanced payment for work yet to be done was established. Alongside this were marketing promises such as how this new approach would provide stable and predictable income allowing for solid financial and business planning. It would also offset the less work in progress friendly nature of CDS billing. Indeed I remember someone high up describing this as an "interest free loan".

Well it now seems as if the bailiffs have been set loose!

Our understanding was always that contracts should be reconciled to 110%. That is if your contract is for £110,000, and it is reasonably predictable that you will report £100,000 at the end of the contract period, your SMP should not be amended. Indeed the Criminal contract states that they will only make amendments to SMPs when your reported work drops below this threshold.

The LSC however, in such negotiations, now consistently attempt to reconcile to 100%. We have had the argument many times in many different guises (especially to suggest that this is not the case in civil) but usually reach some reluctant accommodation with them - most often compromising on 107.5%.

Given that there seems to be a national push aggressively to reconcile the current contract period at 100% underway you should perhaps be aware of this in your negotiations.

If you want further help just give Andy or Steve a ring!!

Regular readers will know that my musical collaboration with my brother is called "slow time mondays". We are having a Christmas Special on 14th December. Monies raised will be split between an orphanage where my brothers god daughter has just completed from a six month voluntary stint and an aids clinic my sons girlfriend has been raising money for all year.

Pop along if you can if not buy a copy of our album "Start" at £5 and we will send £4 to LawCare.

The LSC describe them as "important changes" the Gazette as a "climb down". Spin aside the pressure exerted by the profession has had some impact on the CDS means test, the "highlights" are:

An extended 5 day time limit for extra cover.
Exemptions to the partner signature requirement.
Orders to be dated to start from date of submission.
A tick box for 16/17 year olds with no income.

The Law Society still wants a full review and Richard Miller at the LAPG spots the following continuing problems:

"These welcome changes will go some way towards addressing some of the many problems that have arisen. But in the light of recent experience, solicitors will take a lot of convincing that they can safely act at the first hearing. More importantly, these changes will not help vulnerable clients whose applications are refused because the computer wrongly indicates that they are not receiving passporting benefits, or who are unable to provide the information demanded, for example because of mental health issues, or a recent change in their means for which there is no documentary evidence."

Keep up the pressure however you can't wear your "What Price Justice?" badge in Court - well in Stoke at least!

The tour bus (aka my car) has gone in for some necessary nurturing following the now complete trip around the UK. We had pretty much a home crowd yesterday at Leeds to finish off. One of the delegates we know reported a Competent + outcome to a recent VHCC instigated review which is encouraging.

As promised I re-post links to the Improving Quality guides. I will try and get them in a separate section on the side bar some time soon.

Here they are:

Crime

Mental Health

Immigration

Debt and

Welfare Benefits

The last two legs of the Autumn tour today and tomorrow and then a little bit of a breather (although plenty of in-house courses are lined up). Been pretty good so far, though I say it myself. The general mood is, as I have reported earlier less resigned than before and a little more combative. Everyone, but the powers that be, gets the central cost paradox in expecting casework to be done to a new higher threshold whilst at the same time "efficiency savings" are the name of the policy day.

Our direct work with firms on the issue is demonstrating that you do not necessarily need dramatic change to achieve PR improvement and that some simple redirection of focus can work wonders. I will post some more thoughts on this in December.

But for now it is to fill up the boot again and off down the road - Halifax tonight though I will go out with Andy and not Paddy Kenny.

We have discussed CLACs (that's Community Legal Advice Centres to you) before. On the last occasion the project seemed in some doubt.

Things suddenly seem to have become somewhat worse. It seems difficult to see how they intend to launch these without the Law Centres onboard and I guess they will reach an accommodation with them.

That said it's hardly a rosy picture is it?.

Back to this from Saturday morning. We managed to do the (card)boarding up ourselves, I now await the glazier. The boarding up job would have cost a minimum one-hour call out fee at £79. About the voluntary sector rate for Immigration but not for other legal aid!

I rarely post on a weekend but how about this.

A bird strike has smashed a window at my home. How much do you think it will cost me for a "glazier" to come out and board it up? (Not repair it, that will have to wait until Monday).

I will give you the answer to both then.

CLUE It is more than standard Legal Aid rates!

Did I mention how much I currently hate COMET because of their after-sales approach? Andy does too for a similar experience 5 years ago. Stay clear and support a local supplier even if more expensive is our advice.

This, along with the obviously congruent client care element of Peer Review, got me thinking about a longer post on the subject. This was partly inspired by the high standard of service I have received from London CABs (yes that's right all the CAB drivers I used this week were helpful, friendly and efficient without a single inappropriate political comment to boot), this hotel and our bank (admittedly putting a mistake of theirs right but apologising in a polite manner in a very speedy response) this week. COMET don't do sorry it seems.

So I was thinking about this when Andy rang with this gem.

Before I divulge - remember the PR scoring scale:

1 Excellent
2 Competence Plus
3 Competence
4 Below Competence
5 Failure in Performance

When you get to the end of the post you can put your grade in the comments box.

A client firm has had its PR result. Under separate cover the files arrived back today. They are in the original storage boxes. Unfortunately they are not this firm's files rather they belong to another CDS supplier. Where their files are is as yet unclear. 1- 5 you are the Judge.

N.B. Whilst pondering your assessment remember that a client firm of ours received a "major area of concern" at assessment for sending a letter to a client at his previous bail address after being remanded.

The first date of the current Peer Review training tour was in Cardiff. Here I discussed how voluble the crowd was. In particular was the very strong assertion by some delegates that local firms were getting good results by comprehensively doctoring files before submission.

Now this is a topic we discuss regularly with firms and certainly it is neither something we advise nor do we think that practically much can be achieved if a file has chronologically irretrievable errors.

We are however now in possession of evidence which would seem to support the above contentions. Not that we will be changing our advice.

A quick batch of news items from a hotel room.

The first of these two appeals was successful with the enhancement reinstated. The second is now listed the day after what I thought would be my last Cost Committee, at the end of November. So still 3 verbal enhancement arguments to win!

Yesterday I came across only the 4th excellent PR result to date and the first in Housing. Once again clearly a result of active supervision. The crime files were not bad either. At the same time I had a call from a firm facing their second cat 4 and a potential termination notice.

Steve lives near York and is in Middlesbrough today. Andy has travelled from Halifax to be even further north and I am in London (interesting hotel concept for anyone planning an Xmas shopping trip). Mad isn't it.

I have just rekindled my love of ironing, perversely on a "non iron" shirt using the worlds most dangerous ironing board and am again watching house auction TV before going to another hotel to shout at a bunch of solicitors.

Talking of TVs. If you are thinking of buying one soon, or frankly any other electrical appliance avoid COMET like the plague. Their after sales service is dreadful and the casual disinterest of their inappropriately named customer care staff is staggering. From now on I will even pay a bit more to support a local electrical goods supplier.

I am asked by one of the few remaining Northern Immigration practices to advise upon the key CCA fail factors. Whilst some of this is quite specific there are some general messages especially to civil suppliers. It is also worth remembering that the new "file assessment" process proposed as part of the Preferred Supplier Scheme will reintroduce a degree of contract compliance assessment of fixed fee matters. It will certainly test the data integrity of your monthly returns.

(In the following when I refer to CAG I mean Cost Assessment Guidance, which is the General Civil Contract Appendix E. Actual references are from my increasingly fragile memory and cannot be verified as I have no LSC manual with me)

1 Proof of Means

Evidence of means compliant with CAG 3.3. This means NASS, sponsor/supporters letter etc. which covers the appropriate computation period. If involved in the NWP ring Simon.

2 LH/CLR Form Completion

Is the form fully completed, the calculations correct, all appropriate boxes ticked, any devolved powers decision (especially those LH ones) properly justified.

3 CLR Grant

If it is a self granted CLR has the merits test been properly recorded in line with the questions to be asked in GCC Rule 5.1 preferably not by way of a pro forma sheet. This remains a testy area of argument with the LSC more info from Simon over the phone.

4 Preparation Basics

Is everything there, especially items prepared for trial bundles.

5 Are Disbursements Reasonable

This is another currently live issue, especially regarding Interpreters fees and is another one worth a call to SP. Travel also sometimes falls under scrutiny. To a degree there is little that can be done retrospectively.

6 Cost Limits

Again by audit time your file will have been billed so if you have involuntarily exceeded and claimed above the limit there is little to be done however as a pointer to the future.

7 Mainstream Assessment

Does your file justify the time claimed? This is of course the main element of the assessment and needs clear explicit file recording in order to succeed. Pay particular attention to long interviews and exceptional circumstances, country of origin material and internet research, translation effect (read back of statements etc). This is always a pretty subjective element of the process so make what you did clear.

8 Billing Time Limits

By CCA time if it was billed out of time this will be intractable, again it is one to watch.

There are of course many more of these points, and a lot of sub divisions, but as a quick start without reference to our archive bank of now nearly 200 completed appeals this will have to do for now.

I have not a huge amount of time for Jury's Inn hotels - they seem a slightly more expensive Travel Inn with a bit of an attitude. They do however have good internet access hence the ability to post on the road.

Today I am in Birmingham with a sold out room of Peer Review delegates in Doug Ellis' former Directors Boardroom. It will be interesting to see if they are as voluble as the crowds at the last two events.

One thing about this type of touring is that you get to see (out of the corner of your eye rather than actually watch) quite a bit of early morning telly. Currently this seems either to involve human or animal hospitals or various versions of property shows. You will be pleased to know that the damaged Red Kite featured in todays show is going to survive.

Another PR result came in on Friday. This was a further VHCC panel assessment and one we had a look at before it went away for review. Our view "threshold competent" was confirmed in the final result. Furthermore the comments made in the official feedback were very close to those we made. It confirms our view that we are getting quite close to an understanding of the metre being used by panel members.

The twist here however is that the firm also gained an informal view from a panel member which scored them a grade higher.

I will be shouting on the subject in Birmingham and London this week.

What seems a very long week is drawing to a close with only the simple matter of delivering three hours CPD training this pm to go. If the crowd is as engaged, discursive and feisty as in Cardiff on Wednesday then it will be less simple. Having just read the Gazette perhaps this is part of the reason for their energy. That said they were one of the liveliest crowds I've "shouted" at in recent times.

That was sandwiched between two of my remaining Cost Committee appointments (I will be back now in Manchester before the fall). One went reasonably well the other less so. Both, in different ways, demonstrated the strength and flaws of this system, however I remain convinced it is better than what is set to replace it. That said I will not miss hearings one bit notwithstanding the loss of income involved!

So a round trip from Middlesbrough to Manchester to Ross-on-Wye to Cardiff to London and home is done. (I have two warning lights on though for my troubles). Next week it is Brum and London.

The highlight of the week seeing one of these from my bedroom window here. The food and accommodation were good and good value also.

As I am training on Peer Review at the moment here are the five so far published guides to category specific compliance as promised to delegates in Cardiff on, now when was it, Wednesday. (Still no Family!)

Crime

Mental Health

Immigration

Debt and

Welfare Benefits

Interestingly subsequent to reading this story it appears that the MH version IS no longer on the LSC web site. The same story shows some further momentum in the professions favour regarding Carter - the MHLA people are pretty well organised you know.

Andy Bean writes:

I have now had chance to review the two latest Peer Review results and accompanying Reports. Both Reports seem to indicate the liking for detailed information sheets/booklets being issued to clients if they are uncomplicated and straight-forward.

However, it is quite clear from both Reports that when firms are dealing with youths or vulnerable clients, such information and any standard letters should always be tailored to their needs. In fact, one Peer Reviewer suggests that rather than writing a lengthy letter to a client and within that letter asking them to make an appointment, a separate letter should be issued with that simple task within it.

Another consistent issue raised across both of these Reports is the taking of instructions at the earliest opportunity, and then following that up at the earliest opportunity with the full proof of evidence being obtained and held on the file. Both Reports do seem to be sympathetic to the fact that some clients are unwilling to attend the firm’s office so that such proofs can be obtained, but it is quite clear that the Peer Reviewers are taking the view that you need to therefore be a bit more pro-active, and consider other alternative ways of obtaining instructions, i.e. attending upon the client at Court to obtain the proof, or obtaining proof of evidence via the telephone.

I know we did not see one of the samples of files to which one of these Reports refers, but with regards to the second sample, we did and I think that generally as a firm we are getting pretty much a good feel for whether or not a sample will receive Competent, Competent Plus or Below ratings. I know that the issues that we may raise are not the same as Peer Reviewers, but then again when we looked at the two Reports prepared on a Family sample, on the same sample of files those Peer Reviewers did not raise the same issues, but the outcome was the same.

One thing that did concern me on both of these samples were isolated incidents on files being taken and used as ‘areas of concern’, rather than the Peer Reviewer being able to evidence a clear Competent Failure across the sample of files. I am sure that every firm will appreciate that there are going to be on certain occasions “bad files”. I think that if this approach is going to be taken it has to be stressed to all firms the importance of ensuring that every file is 100% compliant.

Sandra writes:

Please note our CDS6 Generator has been updated for November reporting and is now available on this site: scroll down the left hand side and click on the link 'Reports, Forms and Brochures'. Keep moving down the document list until you see the heading ‘Generators’.

The LSC Online version of our CDS6 Generator is just about complete - as this is of a more technical nature, please email us if you would like to go on the set-up list: jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk.

Our new Autumn Claim Code (v2) laminates - now showing the 2U code - are ready to go. Please email or call the numbers on the left hand side for your copies.

Regulars will know that we have been watching the proposals for changes to cost appeals for some time now.

Yesterday saw the first indication that these are being implemented. I was instructed to represent a client at a CC regarding a significant reduction on a CDS 7. The firm have been told however that the case has already been forwarded to a single adjudicator and we will receive the results later. We will then only have the opportunity (usually in vain) to get a "point of principle" certified.

I have not seen anything on this above that linked to in the earlier post. (It might be that as we are not a law firm we have not seen the relevant correspondence if so we be grateful for a fax). Should there not be some contract changes however? Do these exist? Beyond that what are the new arrangements? What happened to the suggestion that there might be occasions where you can be represented? What about the opportunity to provide further written representations once the LSC have reviewed their original decision? Do we even get to see the appeal bundle?

Today could be my penultimate CC hearing then.

Friend of this site, Andrew Keogh over at Crimeline, has been testing the profession's feelings about means testing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, here is the conclusion:

"Following repeated assertions by the legal aid minister Vera Baird and Derek Hill (DCA) that means testing was working well, CrimeLine decided to carry out a survey of its members. 89% believe that means testing is not working".
 
Full details can be found here.

Today sees the start of my latest Training Tour. There are still places available and a booking form is available on the above link.

I also mix it in with a couple of CCA Appeal hearings, so I won't be back in front of this machine until Friday Morning. I hope to do some posting whilst on the road (I know one of the hotels has tinternet access). So Manchester, Cardiff and London here I come.

The JRS Head Office team are both starving and we are going for two of these. Unfortunately we don't have Hard Rock on Teesside so this will have to do.

And here are some people talking about burgers too. N.B. Do not play if offended by swearing.

Todays comment question what is your favourite burger?

We have had two PR results notified to us this week. Both are in the crime category one returning a "threshold competent" result the second "competence plus". There are no startling findings and both firms are happy with their respective results. From our point of view they seem pretty fair outcomes however once again we spot some technical inconsistencies and, in comparison to earlier outcomes, there appears to be a bit of "mellowing" in the final ratings.

One of the reports does however provide an important insight into an issue I'd rather not discuss "on air". If you are in the process of retrieving a sample from archive for this type of assessment give us a ring.

Slightly lazy bloggin today lifting a second story from the Gazette but I do have to practice a bit for tonight.

This is a subject we have discussed before which has now seemingly hit a technical obstacle.

Is it just me or doesn't it seem a bit late in the day for this discussion? On the other hand.

Here's a date for you diary.

December 4th & 5th are being proposed by Cardiff Law Society as a day for a National Strike.

As the Gazette reports:

"The proposal is a combined protest over Lord Carters legal aid reforms, difficulties with the introduction of means testing this month and conditional cautioning by the CPS"

The JRS shop stewards are meeting today to decide if we are coming out in solidarity.

Sorry to bang on about this however we have just confirmed with LawCare that the (limited) proceeds from "Start", £4 of the £5 advisory cover price, will go to them. Get your cheque books out.

I anticipate there are likely to be a number of differing viewpoints regarding this story. I imagine that amongst the general public these range from supportive, angry motorists to anti-lawyer, bar-room bores. Amongst the profession views might also be polarised from envious "got his comeuppance" types lawyers on the one hand and those, including some I've spoken to in the locality, who are professionally highly sceptical at this point.

I tend to be with the latter. Over the years we have observed capricious hounding of successful lawyers by the police, including on one occasion a strip search, plus plenty of other stuff I would rather not go into on here. I am also minded of the story of one of the lawyers I now most respect, and met through our work. He faced action of this type, clearly designed to close his successful, client focussed firm, which finally never proceeded, however caused significant personal and professional damage in the process. (I imagine Mr Loophole is more media savvy than to let this happen to him).

By way of balance we know a couple of people who have ultimately been convicted but given the many thousands of lawyers we must have come across over the last 10 years, that is not a bad percentage.