Though technically now on holiday I have been unable to avoid checking the outcome of yesterdays Unified Contract deadline. According to the LSC it appears that most have signed, though once again the tone of their comments are unlikely to make new friends.

In addition, and it interesting how to judge this, there is now a new, extended deadline. Do they have 85% as they claim or is this a gesture to those who withheld signature? We will probably have to wait for the dust to settle.

I am off on holiday on Sunday to the Land of the Giant Mouse although we will spend more time at Universal and Seaworld rather than with the superannuated rodent. (I have invites of hospitality from two clients too!).

Perversely, you might say, I do have a bit of regret that I will miss the next two weeks of the the Unified Contract saga. I dare say that this will subside after my first Boston Lager at the House of Blues.

Off to Miami too and have the sleeves rolled up on my jacket and my white shoes on already!

I will try a bit of remote bloggin', best theme park ride, tastiest burger, celeb spots etc., and the team will keep the news up to date here. As ever your thoughts and contributions gratefully received.

See you in a fortnight.

We understand that yesterday's Law Society Council unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in the LSC over its conduct of contract negotiations.

As you know, we are not ones who understand the nuances of such diplomacy. This however seems pretty much as close to the type of language we would use in the circumstances, but without using it.

More when we get it.

UPDATE

Here is a letter in the Times.

MORE NEWS

The LS are considering a last minute injunction. It is a bit sketchy but you might want to consider this final gambit in this Mexican stand-off.

The above is a "self updating link" to the LS website and if you go there now, 4pm, you will see both a decision not to seek an injunction and also confirmation of the vote of no confidence. I will be watching all of this with interest via the BlueBerry from across the pond next week.

We commented upon LSC Chief Executive Carloyn Regan's letter on the unified contract yesterday.

Her opposite number at the Law Society, Des Hudson, has the following to say in response:

"Your letter is also a plain distortion of the Law Society's position on the unified legal aid contract. The Society has sought throughout to alert practitioners and other interested parties to the inequity of the contract on offer. It has been forced into this position by the LSC's intransigence with regard to amendments and its apparent indifference to the welfare of legal aid suppliers."

Hat Tip - AnonMike

The blogosphere (i.e. where you are now) is home to much lunatic, conspiracy theory paranoia and nonsense.

We occasionally succumb to this. In a continuation of this theme, is it possible that they could nearly achieve a diversion from Teesside to Leeds/Bradford last night so as to impede my progress? At very least the delay meant I missed all of the match.

I was engaged in my last CCA Cost Committee hearing EVER yesterday so was somewhat out of the loop with the flurry of activity concerning this week Unified Contract deadline (and we do like to keep you up to date!). More of that experience later.

I guess therefore that you have all received this correspondence. Time will tell if this is political naiveté, blind panic, crass stupidity or a mixture of all three but I am staggered at both it's tone and content.

I have the inclination, but not the time - a Manchester audience waits, to write a line-by-line commentary so just a couple of quick points.

I have some sympathy with the proposition put that the new contact is not much worse than the current one, the point being that the current one is not that good either. What they are missing however is the political context and that signature is effectively consent to a wider range of proposals on which "consultation" is little more than a sham. This is a fault line in the Carter "roll out" which, seemingly many of the profession have spotted and responded to.

On top of this to try and spin events to paint the Law Society as the irresponsible party I can, with a degree of impartiality, only describe as nonsense. A short chat with our delegates today, to sample the mood, would quickly put that view right. Is nobody accurately advising LSC Senior Management about this and do they genuinely believe there is a substantial section of the supply base is really content?

Finally, and because I have written more than I intended, I am sure that the Autorecbots - sorry Account/Relationship managers are delighted to be placed in the front line on this one.

And remember this from the person who brought you "we are all in this together".

The backdrop to yesterday’s training course turned out to be a meeting the evening before, at which North East firms had been discussing the Unified Contract. It seems that many firms were actively considering not signing. Other contacts tell me that this is by no means a local phenomenon.

Another client reports that an Account Manager let slip that only a small percentage of signed contracts had been returned by the end of last week. Opposition seems to be mounting.

Today begins a somewhat frantic last 4 days before I head off to the land of the Giant mouse on Sunday. Training events at Newcastle and Manchester have, hopefully my last, London Cost Committee sandwiched in between. This requires somewhat convoluted travel plans involving Sandra becoming a chauffeur and me getting a late flight from the land of the Geordays*.

Tomorrows hearing is unusually at 2pm necessitating a late flight back from Heathrow which will coincide with the match. This might however be a blessing in disguise.

I wonder if Sandra will turn up in a peaked cap?

*This spelling of Geordie comes from here:

You might remember my first significant Peer Review appeal "victory". I have just seen the written response and despite achieving the desired re-grading I am still uneasy about some of their findings - anyhow time to let go now.

There is one interesting and important comment which stands out to me:

"The fact that this 'ticklist' approach may be SQM compliant does not make it acceptable for the purpose of peer review."

Just after putting up the Cure below two back-to-back phone calls dragged me back into the unremitting gloom of present times. The first was from a firm who's fund take in the proposed expanded duty scheme borders will be tantalisingly below the £50k threshold (they do provide a significant element of supply in the existing scheme). I think I talked the caller back from the edge, if nothing else by exploring the value their current Duty allocation might hold for another larger supplier. That said another small town will probably lose another experienced practitioner.

More depressing however is a member of the exclusive “I would instruct” club, and a client of over 10 years, who will shortly leave the ranks of the Duty Solicitor scheme. His assistant has gone, to the security of a larger firm, and his continued subsidisation of the CDS will no longer have even its current, limited viability. His growing civil practice, at private client rates and with only a tiny amount of regulatory headache, waits.

Continuing to try and lift the gloom how about this:

Here is something slightly more upbeat. The first clients with whom we've been working on a Peer Review improvement project have just had a live result. And it's (drum roll) Competence Plus - excellent!

Our congratulations to them!

I have just faxed a copy of CRIMLA 12 (available here in the Points of Principle Manual) to a client appealing a CDS 7 determination. For those of you equally sick and tired of one-line justifications for reductions, especially regarding enhancement, which never engage with your special features submissions, this is one we perhaps should begin using a bit more often. The key phrase is:

"reasons must always be given sufficient to enable the solicitor to identify the relevant issues"

A mouse-mat to anyone has had a determination which meets this requirement.

We mentioned the Westminster protest earlier in the week. It makes the front page.

I note that the DCA call this "unprofessional and irresponsible". Obviously instructing and then ignoring experts who conclude that these proposals carry real risk of "market failure" is entirely different.

In other news I notice a report on litigation concerning a blogger. Am I at risk of action by disgruntled Autorecbots? Free advice please!

Obiter also runs a story we covered over a month ago. Keep up!

How did the National Training Day go?

If you were there let us know.

Further to this post yesterday we have now heard of serious problems in four regions, London, West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside and the North West. The LSC have acknowledged there is a problem in at least two of these. Use the comments box to let us know of your experience and DO check your allocation.

The weight and variety of queries and comments concerning the new Police Station duty allocations suggest to us that there might well be a wheel off here. Do tell us your stories, but more importantly do check your allocations.

The raw claim data should include all Investigations Class, i.e.1 series, claims made on CDS 6s between December 2005 and November 2006 excluding 1A (CDS 1 free-standing advice and assistance) and 1G Duty Solicitor Standby payments) claims. We think you have until Friday to raise concerns with the LSC.

There is likely only to be this short post today, for two reasons:

1 I imagine many regular readers will be on the National Training Day in Birmingham

2 I am very busy, with three deadlined appeals to complete before close of business.

More tomorrow.

There is not much coverage I can quickly find about yesterdays protest at Parliament. I did however hear Julian Hayes on the radio yesterday.

There are these two letters in the Guardian though - one supportive one, stupidly, not. If you know of any better links or were there let us know.

In final preparation for the forthcoming training courses I have had a further read of this, in particular the section mentioned in the headline. I had intended to post on this earlier but didn't get round to it.

I am put in mind of a conversation following Law London last year. The delegate in question has a somewhat colourful name for his Account Manager - of which the AM is aware. I guess that this is now prohibited probably under clause 3 -

Neither party will tolerate impolite or rude communication by any of their personnel. Shouting, oppressive or threatening behaviour is expressly prohibited.

This is of course also one of the reasons Andy and Steve do most of the audit "baby-sitting" for this firm despite not having to sign up to it.

Is the use of the name "Autorecbot" "impolite, rude, oppressive or threatening"?

Whilst at Law London earlier in the week, news of the first new post Carter Duty rotas began seeping through. I heard of firms both happy and disgruntled with their percentage allocations.

Last night at 19.52 (just to prove that we are not on flexi time here!) I spoke to a client with an interesting situation. He had been told of his allocation, at the West Yorkshire meeting by a "man with a computer at the back of the room" and was not too dissatisfied. On further thought he began to question the raw number of claims on which his percentage had been worked - surely, his thinking ran, we did more than this over a 12 month period?

Sure enough a quick check on his CDS 6 Wizard shows the number the LSC are relying on is about half of their claims in the current boundary. It looks as though they have not included work related to the towns second Police Station. If this is the case, and we are still investigating, then the entire rota has been miscalculated. Could this possibly be the case in the brave new post Carter world? Is this an "Autorecbot Duty Solicitor sub routine run time error 904"?

Given this is the first one we have looked at in any detail we perhaps need to be afraid! Please tell us of your experiences.

UPDATE

In addition to Shirley's comment we have had another firm only getting roughly half the number of raw cases allowed. We think that the original problem might be as a result of the exclusion of one of the two claim codes for the same local Police Station.

Despite a few recent victories, and an anticipated lull in combat given the forthcoming Contract year-end, hostilities continue with the Autorecbots. They have, however, now resorted to dirty tactics in their attempts to frustrate the work of JRS.

Last night at 2am, a London Unit set off the fire alarm in my hotel, requiring a full scale evacuation and 15 minutes on a shivering cold London street. Ingenious hey?

Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

Posted by Blueberry from Heathrow.

Well here I am at Olympia (it is quite nostalgic as I used to live over the road, might even have a pint at my old local later!). I am currently writing this months Indi Lawyer column and handling some phone enquiries.

The latter are inevitably depressing - significant loss of income to a family firm due to the "harmonisation" of FPC and CC rates and the second firm today facing difficulty in getting a new Criminal contract under the market stability measures.

More later.

I am shortly to leave for Law London where I am speaking. I have the last hour of the day slot which, rather than making me headline act, works in reverse. By then most punters will, I imagine have wandered off home with their CPD points carefully tucked away in a pocket leaving me an almost empty room. Never mind I shall do some sad commercial traveller work in hotel tonight and go see a London client tomorrow morning.

Having finally succumbed to the lure of the billberry I might even try a post from there later.

Bt the way (or BTW as my kids might say in a text message) we failed to notice an important milestone for this place earlier in the week - our 500th post. It is becoming quite a mature site - well at least in age if not always in content.

And they said it would never last!

The newly redesigned version of this site is nearly ready and will be unveiled shortly, perhaps this week.

Once again we would encourage any firm wanting to advertise themselves (especially for agency work), via a link on the sidebar, to submit your URL to Sandra for inclusion.

We are also putting on a new "suppliers and services" section for commercial firms offering support services to the profession. Rather than charge an advertising fee we are asking for a small donation to Lawcare to secure a link. Again anyone interested - contact the office.

As I type Joanna is labelling and taping up a large number of storage boxes shortly to wend their way home for their remaining 6 years of life in some storage facility. They are samples of Family and "Integrated Social Welfare Law" files we have been giving the once over for a Peer Review nervous firm.

The findings are not startling and the reports not dissimilar to most set of findings we make nowadays. Pro-activity, communication and advice recording remain the main concerns along with the practical need to overhaul standard letters and forms. The firm in question does now however face a live PR in the very near future if the LSC's timetables are implemented. The above will therefore have to be addressed double quick and despite this result reliance on appeals or 14 days of frantic burnishing is not the way forward.

Those wanting a similar check please form an orderly queue.

Regulars to this place and also our training events will know of my cynicism regarding Peer Review representations. These are not an appeal in any traditional sense involving paper only objections which are considered by the original reviewer and a senior panel member. To date out of the 10 or so we have prepared or advised upon only one was successful and that a move from Cat 3 (competent) to Cat 2 (competence plus). In that case it really only involved two files.

Today I am delighted to pass on the news that we have won our first Cat 4 (below competent) to Cat 3 appeal. I am not sure that they deserved the re-grading any more than the others we have represented, although the errors of fact were somewhat more glaring, but it a bit of an antidote to my cynicism. will have a quiet celebratory drink when I return from Yorkshire this evening.

I decided to work from home today to try and (re)read all the background material necessary for our forthcoming training tour and Law London next Wednesday. It is half eleven and the phone and e-mail have not stopped all morning. On top of that I have been disturbed by both the milkman and the window cleaner. (Given what follows in the rest of this piece, and the amount both these have just charged me, either of these vocations might prove a fruitful career alternative for Legal Aid lawyers). There goes the door bell has gone again!

In the midst of all this is a call from Nigel Ford drawing my attention to this report. It seems that the LSC have been pressured into publishing it due to the persistence of the earlier mentioned Andrew Keogh - well done that man.

(Promotional call from Barclaycard interrupts)

If you do nothing else read the two page summary. There is not one of the 11 paragraphs that I would particularly highlight and it is written with the diplomacy of an experienced report writer. As Mr Ford says - "Couldn't have put it better myself".

My four word summary:

(Client call interrupts)

Carter Doomed to Failure.

Friend of this site Andrew Keogh's firm Tuckers features in this weeks Gazette. One can well understand the firms frustration - not least given Andrews dogged persistence regarding matters such as that in the post above.

It is not the first time the LSC have used such a photo either. (The link to the PDF file no longer works).

The full set of timescales for "Quality Assessment Roll Out" (Peer Review to you and I) to facilitate Best Value Tendering (BVT) and Preferred Supplier have now been announced.

Best off are Social Welfare and Family providers in Harrow - they seemingly have until November 2009, at the earliest, to get PR standards right. Less lucky are those in the first phases which begin in a few short weeks time.

You can talk to us about Preferred Supplier and Peer Review and there will be sections on both subjects at these events. Places still available.

In a celebrity appearance on Radio 5 Live to discuss "reasonable force" Steve Wedd used the phrase "nuts" in a discussion about what constitutes self defence for a police officer who has his "nuts" gripped by an assailant.

Er that's it.

I am in the middle of an intriguing day writing (or rather editing) a tender for a client, mulling over two Internal Reviews and phone monitoring an ongoing audit. The former feels a bit like a glimpse into the future under post Carter Best Value Tendering not least with the VHCC version due to begin later this year. The remaining tasks are pretty much the run of the mill mortal combat I have been involved in for the last few years. Given Richard's views, as expressed below, it seems that this might remain part of the scene moving forward too. I certainly hope not.

By the way do read Andrew's comment here (the first three are spam).

COMMERCIAL RISKS TOO HIGH, SAYS LAPG

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today condemned the significant commercial risks placed on providers by the draft Specification to the Unified Contract. The Specification, published by the LSC in draft form on 1st March, is due to be implemented in October 2007, six months after the new Standard Terms.

Director Richard Miller said, "The Specification prohibits suppliers from undertaking the management of caseloads necessary to operate in a fixed fee environment, by imposing on solicitors a 'cab-rank rule', under which they will be required to take on every case that comes through the door if they have current capacity."

"The LSC is also reserving the right to cut the Standard or Graduated Fees during the short life of this contract if the average amount of work reported by the profession in any category decreases by more than 10%. So in the unlikely event that firms can achieve savings as the LSC wants to encourage, their reward will be to have the fees cut again."

He continued, "We are now told that, contrary to what is said in the 'Way Ahead', disbursements for travel costs will not be claimable on top of the Standard or Graduated Fee for controlled work. This represents a further, wholly unexpected, cut in already inadequate rates."

"On top of all of this, the dreaded Contract Compliance Audits are back with a vengeance, complete with extrapolation of results to all of a firm's non-standard claims and recoupment of costs previously paid. CCAs did huge damage to firms' cashflow when the LSC recouped hundreds of thousands of pounds legitimately claimed by firms, after inadequately qualified and poorly trained LSC staff carried out incompetent audits. The exercise single-handedly destroyed a previously quite reasonable relationship between the LSC and the profession. Last year, the LSC
indicated that CCAs were being phased out in favour of peer review and File Assessment - Value for Money. We thought we had the LSC's agreement to treat issues arising on such assessments as a contract management issue. Apparently not."

Miller concluded, "As if the uncertainties of the Standard Terms were not enough, the additional commercial risks placed on practitioners by this Specification are quite extraordinary. They go well beyond what any private business in any other sphere of Government activity would be expected to tolerate. We will be seeking substantial changes to the draft Specification in the coming weeks to try to ensure that firms have a viable commercial basis on which to operate."

Our friends at the LAPG have beaten us to some comments on last weeks avalanche of further consultations:

SOME IMPROVEMENT BUT STILL MAJOR CONCERNS, SAY LAPG

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today welcomed, with reservations, the improvements in the structure of the LSC's proposals for family graduated fees, but expressed continuing serious concern about the rates on offer.

Director Richard Miller said, "The structure set out in these revised proposals is a distinct improvement on the proposals from the Way Ahead document, particularly for care proceedings. Nonetheless, we are still sceptical as to whether fixed fee systems can be appropriate for all family work; and we remain seriously concerned that the rates payable under these proposals will not be sufficient to ensure an adequate supplier base for this work."

The documents published also included the LSC's intended scheme for immigration. LAPG committee member and immigration specialist Lawrence Lupin said, "There remain many questions about how the LSC has calculated the proposed payment rates under this scheme. The LSC has so far failed to answer these questions despite repeated requests. Most of the respected practitioners who have seen these figures have concluded that they are not viable. Under these fees, there is no scope to undertake quality work, and clients will suffer even if they are able to find a lawyer."

Miller also expressed concern about the pace and extent of change. "Today I have downloaded nineteen pdf files from the Legal Services Commission website, including annexes and regulatory impact assessments. This is on top of consultations published earlier this month on police station boundaries and the very high cost criminal case panel, not to mention the negotiations on the new unified contract. I am paid full time to keep on top of the LSC's initiatives, and I can barely cope with this blizzard of publications. How on earth can any practitioner who is trying to conduct a substantial caseload to a high standard be expected to do so? The sheer volume, speed and extent of the changes is liable to destroy the legal aid system even if the substance doesn't."

I have limited time to blog today as a trip across the Pennines, followed by discussions regarding contract compliance, is on the agenda (hopefully a nice drive on a Spring day). Strangely I have had a little resurgence of this type of work lately, including a number of chats with some of the others out there who have done a bit of casework in this deeply depressing area. It just won't go away.

I managed to read less of the avalanche of paper discussed on Friday than I would have liked, having another CC related job to finish on Saturday (depression compounded by football results). I will make an attempt later in the week to post some thoughts here however I've a number of deadlined jobs to kill off by the end of this week so don't hold your breath.

Off to try my new sat nav even though I pretty much know the route.

Time constraints also impact on our ability to comment further on this this important story. This is one area where I imagine diversity considerations are however unlikely to impact upon policy.

Knowing that most lawyers will be reading our usual, light hearted, "dress down Friday" post here, the LSC have chosen today to "bury" a series of consultations. (Actually it was yesterday but that rather spoils the story!).

The Immigration stuff and the Unified Contract we did of course trail yesterday. Unfortunately due to pressure of work I can't imagine we will be able to post as speedily about them as we normally do. Sorry maybe next week.

I have however, since this, been eagerly awaiting the ECMS (Electronic Case Management System) specification. This too is out today. To be honest we had been anticipating something somewhat more substantive. "It must have a box with lots of wires coming out of it" frankly doesn't take things that much further forward.

We intend to progress our ECMS project later this month so any further thoughts, on top of the almost universally positive earlier feedback, would be gratefully received.

We are now having a staff meeting so I might not get round to a "ddf" post - will see what we can do!

Thanks to Anon in the comments box who provides a link to the Law Society's take on the new unified contract. (Anon, why not adopt a pseudonym so we can differentiate between you and the rest of the Anon family).

I also hear that the new Immigration contract is out today. Doubtless the inbuilt advantage to the NfP sector will now disappear under the new "Unified Contract".

Finally, because this is all I can post today as I am off to Manchester on the PR training trail, if any Immigration practitioners want a chat about the above - phone or e-mail is fine.