Having recently posed the question "Do Autorecbots have pets?" we were also wondering if they had a sense of humour?

Earlier I expressed my trepidation that a meeting with an Arb today might potentially be influenced by his reading of this site.

Early into the discussion we received an assurance to the effect:

"You needn't worry I'm not going to behave like an Autorecbot"

Very good indeed!

So the answer would seem to be Yes - mind you I think I already knew that:

The depressing tone of the week continues with a further tale of a firm in financial trouble and more detail on two more Peer Review failures.

I have advised one of the PR "below competent" firms. On the basis of the report alone I feel negative about the potential for an "appeal". It does however contain all the classic "major areas of concern" in criminal reviews - including advice on appeal, interview strategy at police station and quality of communication. It also has two areas we did not anticipate at the outset of the scheme - ethical issues and conflict of interest checking. These latter two items have been surprise regulars amongst the findings we have seen over the last 18 months. Overall it almost reads as if a checklist has been run through searching for findings in these top 10 areas.

Just to top it off I am off to meet an Autorecbot this afternoon - hope it is not one who has read this blog!

Any good news stories submitted will be published.

Spring time - daffodils, birds singing, lengthening nights, lambs gambolling in the fields, Leeds facing relegation and another JRS Training Tour.

This time we are reverting to a format we used some years ago, a mixed "magazine style" course covering a number of topics. In essence it will be an essential updater for all practitioners without time to digest all the many and varied consultation papers. It also allows us to give an insight into our practical experience of the impact of these policies on practice.

The course will cover:

Peer Review in action
Carter developments
Preferred Supplier "roll out"
The new IT requirements
News Update

The tour dates are:

Tuesday 20th March, Leeds/Bradford, Cedar Court

Thursday 22nd March, London, Mostyn Hotel Marble Arch

Tuesday 27th March, Gateshead/Newcastle, Marriot Metro Centre

Thursday 29th March, Manchester, Marriot Victoria and Albert

The course attracts 3 CPD points at a reduced price, for blog/internet bookings, of £130. (Oh and that includes some lunch).

Here is a booking form.

We are having a heated debate in the office about the decision to grant Middlesbrough a license for a "large casino". I am in favour, Sandra is against and Jo doesn't care (but she is from Redcar and they have enough sea front slot machines in any case). Join in, in the comments box.

AFTERTHOUGHT

Just in case you get the wrong impression of our little town Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art opened last weekend (unfortunately I missed it as I was in London).

Pay us a visit!

Can't believe I failed to find this last week. Genuinely funny.

I wonder what goes on by biog prior to final copy edit?

Sorry to start the week on a depressing note but for the third time in as many days I find myself advising as to the mechanisms for obtaining "hardship" payments on Crown Court cases.

It is the type of anecdotal evidence useless in negotiation over Carter etc. but can it really just be a coincidence?

Perhaps it is the Legal Aid version of this:

Its Friday, and fairly quiet, and the post below got me thinking about Autorecbots again. So, on a less serious theme, here is another question:

Do Autorecbots have pets?

Yes they do!

(And yes I know I have a stupid dog too).

The answer to yesterdays last question, in essence how little per month will the LSC reduce a Standard Monthly Payment to help massage figures for the DCA?

Yesterday we heard of a firm who will receive a reduction of £90 on each of their last two contract payments this year. That is the lowest yet, unless of course you know better!

UPDATE

After posting this I received a call from a client currently struggling on a very low SMP - I am now going to meet their Autorecbot face-to-face next week. Andy and Steve will therefore have a very nervous few days.

BONG

Another client firm reports a Competent Plus Crime PR result - well done, you know who you are.

BONG

Less cheery and very confidential news from another.

BONG

A third reports the lowest projected end March over-claim which has resulted in an amended SMP. Their final two payments will be reduced by... well you have a guess and I'll tell you tomorrow.

The Gazette summarises contributions to the HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing surrounding Carter implementation here. Perhaps I misheard Nigel and it was Ed Cape rather than Lee Bridges putting the knife in from an academic point of view. I think you can still listen to the lot on the above link.

Interesting reading nonetheless. Am I right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum building here?

Apparently Professor Lee Bridges appeared in front of the HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday. It was discussing the implementation of Lord Carter's proposals. I cannot listen to this on my computer (because it is a Mac) but friend of this site Nigel Ford suggests that he rather forciably clarified his point that "market failure, is a real possibility". If anyone does listen please put some comments below.

Many thanks to all of you who responded to yesterdays request. Load of really helpful comments, thoughts and encouragement.

Watch this space.

Here we thanked the LSC, primarily for putting us on the online marketing list rather than for the immediate content of the first e-mail (CDS form updates). We do not recant that thanks but....

Why oh why oh why do they have to release a further amended CDS 17 only a few days later.

It is not currently available on the LSC web-site so to try and help the above download of the CDS 17 (minus question 5) is the one to use from February 2nd.

As we have mentioned before the LSC have now published a response to the Preferred Supplier Consultation. (I will give a fuller take on this later in the month).

Perhaps most intriguingly it seemingly introduces (somewhat out of a clear blue sky) compulsion with regard to the use of ECMS. This next new acronym refers to Electronic Case Management Systems i.e. mandatory use of new software, and yes without any grant funding or other support.

The entire section on "e-business" runs to less than one side of A4 (page 25 of the above linked document) with little more than a single paragraph covering this development.

To date there is no specification as to what, over and above online contract reporting, this will involve. We anticipate further information sometime in February.

I have always held what I think is a healthy scepticism with regard to the actual benefits of ECMS. We have consequently never seriously advised firms to make such an investment. Similarly neither have we jumped into bed with any suppliers either in a developmental or marketing role. Much of this stance is grounded in the practical experience of firms who have rarely seen benefit from such investment.

The spectre of compulsion forces a review of this stance. To this end we have entered into discussions with a software developer to explore a practical response. We have in mind a low cost, stand alone product developed out of an existing system which was designed for and by legal aid practitioners. Before we begin to invest further this is a simple request for some feed back.

If we developed a simple and cost effective product which delivers compliance would you be interested?

Would you rather wait for your current accounts software to be developed?

Is the product itself or after sales and support most important to you?

Would you be interested in any event, regardless of PSS compulsion?

Are you only interested in computer games?

Answers to these questions or any other thoughts on the subject would be gratefully received, either in the Comments, over the phone or by e-mail.

In the meantime don't panic this does look like being a medium rather than short term project.

The Autorecbots are busy again this morning. Andy has dealt with 2 phone enquiries (one over a very small and arguably de minimis overpayment) and I have spoken to a client who the LSC is leaving alone because "we have so badly messed up your contract".

At this point I think it is important to make clear the very deal difference between Autorecbots and Autobots. As the Wikipedia entry explains the latter are the good guys from the toy marketing cartoon "Transformers" where they are engaged in an eternal battle with the evil Decepticons.

By contrast Autorecbots are British Civil Servants. They too seem split into two camps those who are undertaking their current tasks with reluctance and embarrassment and those who seem to think it is fun. We are not sure if they have different names for each other.

To help with future identification here are some Autorecbots on their annual works day out and here are some Autobots.

It struck me that the Carter proposals could be derailed by a strike of Peer Reviewers, rather than the entire profession, some time ago. I kept quiet because I didn't want to upset our Peer Reviewer clients. One of this mornings phone calls indicates that someone else has had the same notion and it is an idea under active discussion in Yorkshire. I consequently feel less constrained.

The same caller draws my attention to the search for new LSC Commissioners. Does anyone fancy applying? Closing date is 9th February.

A JRS mouse-mat to any successful applicants, (you can just ask for one anyway).

This theme will just not go away. One of those battling it out on the front line reports a pyric victory today by achieving a 7.5% positive "balance of payments" figure. He did not however succeed in avoiding a reduced SMP by gaining allowance for all the costs on CDS 7s in the system awaiting assessment.

In describing the conversation with his Account Manager he, fairly in my view, made the point that she was allowed no discretion and had no room to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Furthermore he made clear he would be back immediately in the new contract year for an increase to reflect his actual billing position. I guess many other firms will be in exactly the same position.

There can be little doubt that this exercise is designed to massage the figures for, presumably, DCA consumption at the end of this contract year. There seems little doubt too that this will be a false picture. Sadly somebody's job is probably on the line for this bit of slight of hand.

Anyhow Account Managers might soon be about to become Relationship Managers (and what a good start to that development this is) in the meantime they are Auto Reconciliation Robots. In true LSC fashion this has a three letter acronym - ARR or, as I prefer "Autorecbot". Any comments from disgruntled, anonymous Autorecbots will be treated in complete confidence.

After posting this yesterday my very next client call obviously had to redress the balance.

We have been discussing this issue quite a bit here. In brief the LSC are chasing firms, often on a monthly basis, to try and effect a 100% reconciliation of contracts by the end of March this year. (This despite promises and contract rules guaranteeing a "balance of payments" between 5 -10% in the firms favour).

Yesterdays call involved a firm with a projected 20% under claim by April. Inexplicably they have not had any communication from their Account Manager seeking to redress this over the remaining months.

Looks as though the LSC is toughening the line on protesting solicitors.

Before Christmas I was with a firm who had received a call to ask if they had been involved in a local "strike". They replied "no" because they hadn't. It appears that Big Brother is not only watching Jade Goody.

As I always like to remind people we are all in this together.

If you think we have only bad things to say about the LSC here goes. Many thanks for putting us on the Online Marketing list and consequently todays mail. This, in case you have missed it confirms new versions, mandatory from 2nd February, of the CDS 14 - 17 forms.

Watch out for amendments to your Masterpack.

The latest edition of the CDS 6 Wizard is now available to download on from the "Generators, Forms and Std Letters" box on the sidebar. It can be used as both an on and off line resource (you simply use the "Print CDS 6" button, and post it, if you don't report on line yet.

You can have a copy on disc on request if you encounter download problems - I have just successfully got it in about 30 seconds.

The latest "after representations" CCA result has just been notified to us. It includes a percentage reduction of the alleged over-claim of 43% and a cost saving of £36K on "recoupment". And yet I feel empty and disappointed and will probably have to go to Cost Committee (my last!).

I am cheered further by a fax from a firm we helped with another "successful" CCA appeal last year who have now been "failed" on a subsequent PR.

Both working in the same category - anyone care to guess which?

As I like to remind people we are working in the new world of "more constructive, genuine partnership relationships" and are all in this together.

Just came across the above named site by chance.

Are you one? Fortunately there are not too many names I recognise and not one of our retained clients is there.

That said it looks like a single, motivated, disgruntled client is all that it takes to create an entry.

I now have a link to the cover story from last weeks Gazette. It continues the discussion about the PDS.

This quote (emphasis added) caught my eye:

Prof Bridges added that with the introduction of price competitive tendering, the PDS should be retained as a ‘quality benchmark’ and to provide ‘a protection against market failure, which is a real possibility’.

Given the credence given to the Professors headline findings surely this far more important and far reaching observation deserves some consideration. Unsurprisingly this insight did not turn up in the LSC's press release.

For some time we have been offering protective advice regarding the Preferred Supplier Scheme and "bill assessment rates". It was originally proposed that a civil or criminal bill assessment rate (the percentage taxed off on assessment of civil certificates and CDS 7s) would form one of the entry criteria. (Indeed we know of a firm excluded from the pilot because of failure against this factor).

Para. 4.59 of the consultation response says the following:

"The ongoing monitoring of bill assessment rates should be used as a forward looking performance indicator only"

But then seems to contradict it with:

"bill assessment rates are measured as a key performance indicator with a benchmark percentage assessment rate"

Hopefully however the top quote does take some of the risk out of claiming enhancement .

I am doing some Peer Review training today for a smallish firm. We had to cancel the last planned day due to pressure of work at their end consequently it is some time since I did the review of their 20 files.

Having reviewed my notes of this assessment it is startling how similar the issues are to the appeal I have just concluded. (There are a couple of almost identical cases involving clients on the edge of the mental health system). The same Peer Reviewer would probably then have made a more damming overall assessment than I have.

That said there is nothing here which cannot be improved with a bit more focus and some new forms.

I am continuing with the dress down friday theme having been directed to a couple of fantastic old videos on Youtube (Magazine and the Only Ones). There is tons of stuff there from my youth including the one which follows. This, by the Monochrome Set, reminds me forcibly of "Plan B" discos at the Q Ball Club in Durham whilst a student. This is a version of Jacob's Ladder I don't remember and is different from the one I have on their Greatest Hits album (bought at the Virgin Megastore in Downtown Disney, Florida 2001). It is also a very bizarre video. Go and find some of your old favourites and tell us about them in the comments. (We might even post requests next week).

Sorry I can't resist putting this up too - no more after this, today! Normal service resumed on Monday.

If you saw this cover story in the Gazette you might have been reminded of this and this.

Copies of our (slow time mondays) debut album "Start" are still available and - just to reiterate - £4 from each album sold over this site goes to Lawcare. So dig deep and get buying.

We are back in the studio shortly working on that difficult second album and thinking about a video for myspace or youtube!

As ever the Gazette "online" version is running a day behind. Given that your paper copy will be unopened, on a pile of earlier editions still inside its plastic bag, you will not have seen page 34. Here Senior Costs Judge Peter Hurst summarises the latest guideline solicitors hourly rates, as used for guidance with regard to costs and defence costs orders.

Taking the middle of the three bands (metropolitan areas outside London, and not including Teesside where I am sitting) anyone want to hazard a guess at the Grade A, senior solicitor rate?

If I were to offer you now, blind, the chance to be paid the Grade D trainee/paralegal rate - would you take it?

Put your response in the comments box and then click the blue continue reading link for the actual figures.

Hat Tip- Nigel Ford

Band 2

Grade A £183
Grade B £161
Grade C £133
Grade D £101

Yesterday "Bemused", in the comments box asked for an explanation of this post.

My first tongue in cheek response (also in the comments box) was:

"Once your KPI monitoring shows green a FAVFM will be undertaken on your firm. If your RAG status remains green you will get a PR and need a grade 1 or 2 to get into the PSS. BVCs will subsequently only be offered to PSs."

More seriously, here is a brief summary of the PS process in Civil. Key Performance Indicators (or KPIs) will probably be an amalgam of current monitoring data compared to performance against the new standard fees and reporting codes. They will be "developed with input from practitioners". RAG is a red/amber/green assessment process (similar to the current low/medium/high risk designation), only those on "green", for go, will be progressed to the next stage, File Assessment Value for Money. A detailed explanation of this and the process is due shortly however as described looks a lot like an expanded contract compliance exercise but with no "extrapolation" risk. It is essentially a final filtration process prior to Peer Review (although the process will operate the other way round, PR first, in crime). You will require a top table score, 1 or 2, on PR to become a Preferred Supplier, and ultimately only such firms will be able to participate in Best Value Contracting. Easy isn’t it.

I have just received another annoyed rather than angry call about contract reconciliation. Lets cut to the chase - we both agree that the LSC's actions are a breach of contract (details on request) and that it is time for an Internal Review of the decision.

The weight of these enquiries leaves me in no doubt that there is a centrally orchestrated attempt to massage end of year contract figures in the favour of the Commission. Compared to the arguably "negligent" manner in which some firms have been allowed to amass unsustainable overpayments in the past, there can be no other explanation.

Of course if you know/think otherwise drop us a line.

UPDATE

I wonder if this has had any impact upon the current "dash for cash"?

The rather tenuous answer to the Smashie and Nicey question is in the title. S & N worked on FAB FM (until they were moved to Radio Quiet) famously only playing Bachman Turner Overdrive's - "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet".

To participate in the Preferred Supplier Scheme (PSS) you will have to check you RAG status with regard to your KPIs and be tuned into FAV FM.

If none of this makes any sense (and there is every reason why this might be the case) check this previous post with a link to the PSS document. I am currently writing an article for the CLSA on the subject and will cross post it here on completion.

In the meantime Let's Rock!

Can anyone guess the slightly obtuse connection between these two and Preferred Supplier? (It is really just an opportunity to lighten things up bit). Answer tomorrow.

Yesterdays last post on the PDS was admittedly lazy.

Since then I have had the opportunity to consider this. If you can't be bothered reading the whole thing all you really need is the first sentence:

"The Public Defender Service (PDS) provides a better quality of service than private practice according to independent research published today".

Now I will not be reading the whole 350 odd pages of the report and penning an independent critique (I have little doubt the LAPG's response is on the money). What gets me is the tone. Who decided, at a time when relationships between the profession and the LSC are arguably at an all time low, that such an incendiary opening gambit makes any kind of political or PR sense?

How does this tie in with the promises of "more constructive, genuine partnership relationships"? How does this square with the"overall message", spoken in a "conciliatory tone" that we are "all in this together"?

Apparently not, the Commission can do it better themselves.

There are many reasons I am happy no longer to be in the employ of the successor to the Legal Aid Board. Today I am so glad not to be out auditing a hard pressed CDS supplier and having to defend/discuss this with it's senior partner!

I have just received an e-mail from a firm using the title of this post to describe the LSC's actions regarding the reconciliation of their contract.

This is not an unusual course of events. The firm in question request an e-mail of previous posts on the issue. So for ease of access here are the three most recent in chronological order:

"Irreconcilable?"
"This Mornings Incoming" and
"Robbing Hood"

Sorry more lazy bloggin' today (I am up to my neck in 16 Peer Review files up for appeal against a deadline).

Just in from the LAPG:

LAPG CONDEMNS “SCANDAL” OF PUBLIC DEFENDER
 
The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today challenged the LSC’s interpretation of the research into the Public Defender Service, and called for an end to the "scandal" of continuing with this expensive project.
 
Director Richard Miller said, “Now we know why this report has been suppressed for so long. The evidence shows that the Birmingham and Liverpool PDS Offices performed worse in quality terms than the average of all private practice firms in their region, while the other offices performed only a little better than average. These offices had substantially lower caseloads than private practice firms. The average of chargeable hours per fee earner was around 800, compared with Lord Carter’s requirement of 1,400 hours.
 
“They also received substantially more public money per case. The research shows that the PDS cost around half as much again as private practice, and on some measures more than twice as much.
 
“Yet they were still unable to keep up with the best private practice firms on quality. What will happen to that quality when they are under equal pressure in terms of time and money?”
 
Chair Roy Morgan said, “LAPG has never had any concerns about the independence of mind of public defenders, and believes that if the pilot had shown benefits to the taxpayer in terms of maintaining good quality while saving money, the service would have had a valid place in the system. As it is, the evidence is clear that the PDS is massively more expensive. At a time when private practice firms are faced with substantial cuts to their fees because the Government cannot afford even to maintain current rates, it is a scandal that this hugely expensive alternative which shows almost no benefits in terms of quality is being kept open.”

From Criminal Solicitor Dot Net newsletter for 7th January 2007"

The Law Society has published a Parliamentary briefing for the Westminster Hall debate on the future of criminal legal aid on 11th January 2007:

"Please call your MP to tell them about the problems facing legal aid and urge them to attend the debate."

Here is the Law Society Briefing.

Once again nominations are open for The Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year are open.

I'm tempted to nominate anyone who has had, and survived, difficulties with the LSC (especially CCA and PR). Doing the job in hand, under that kind of pressure, deserves a gong in my view.

Nominations close on 5th April - get going.

I am currently up against deadlines on appeals and one set of PR reps in particular, so a more substantive post regarding Preferred Supplier is not possible. (The headline seems to me to be "bad but not as bad as we thought").

One thing does seem clear however - the LSC have a renewed interest in conducting on-site audits as evidenced by the number of notifications and panic phone calls we have recently received. Generally, though not always, there is little immediately apparent from the risk management statistics (CMRC & QPRs) to justify a visit and where there is, it is probably only enough to indicate medium rather than high risk.

This leads to a slightly lob sided event with not sufficient to occupy the audit teams time for a full day on risk areas. The result is often long sessions considering business planning and financial management, either as a consequence of the level of risk or, and we think more pertinently, because of the centrality of these other factors to the PSS.

As we have said before old fashioned and slightly cynical approaches to business planning (with which we have somewhat unwillingly colluded) will have to end.

That said the pressure for "corrective action" and to define a clear three year strategy in the current environment seems ludicrous. "Tell me if I have a contract, what I will be paid and if I will be a likely PS first" - seems a reasonable response.

That said there is practical groundwork which can be done so - talk to us about the PSS.

The front of this weeks Gazette does not make happy reading regarding this years proposals for change. Preferred Supplier gets some negative comment too.

Postal glitches continue at the LSC. A client seeks advice concerning a forthcoming Contract Compliance Audit. The letter notifying him of this was sent to an address in a distant and completely different town from his office and with which he has no connection what so ever.

Way back when, I helped write my first set of (unsuccessful) representations regarding a Peer Review failure. I thought at the time this was a competent firm, getting good results for clients, which had been wrongly graded.

Yesterday the Senior Partner rang me to tell me that the latest result was Category 2 "Competence Plus".

So what has changed in the intervening position - certainly he has not had to go out and retrain as a CDS Lawyer. Rather they have improved how they demonstrate the quality of the job they do on paper i.e. form is as important as content. He and his team are the same lawyers now but better at showing it off.

This also gives clear hope to those now in the position these people were in at the end of 2005.

I am one of the turns at this event should you be interested.

UPDATE

Here is some further information.

Auspiciously the first piece of New Year LSC correspondence we view, to a client firm, starts off with a misspelling of the Senior Partners name. Now given my own frailties in this area I would not seek to criticise, not least that it looks like a data base entry error.

In the first paragraph however it has one of those phrases which drives me mad, "roll out", in this case with regard to Preferred Supplier. I appear however to have being spelling this hateful piece of jargon incorrectly as it should be "role out". To avoid further embarrassment I intend to use the single word "implementation" as an alternative.

Wishing people a Happy and Prosperous New Year has something of a hollow ring given all we know about what is afoot. We do nonetheless extend that thought ot all our readers.

Somewhat depressingly one of the first e-mails thorough is from a committed and long-standing client, who has finally realised that our equally long-standing advice that they should move away from publicly funded work makes business sense. I guess that this will not be an uncommon experience in the next 12 months and that any number of small market towns will become Legal Aid advice deserts.

We do however continue to believe that those making a resolution to stick with it, and having the commitment to deal with the new schemes, should be able to make a go of it. At JRS we move into our 11th year of trying to assist those starting out with that intent.