Here it is, comments required by 18th May.

Firstly more evidence that the proposed Peer Review "roll out" is happening on schedule as we have received a panicky call from a Mental Health supplier.

Also the Leeds RO confirm that Bingley and Keighley, soon to be merged with Bradford in a new larger Duty boundary, also count as a "designated area" for the new Mags. standard fees.

One anticipates similar "anomalies" exist elsewhere.

Over the years I have come across "in-tray" exercises in a number of contexts - assessment centres as part of training courses etc. I have always thought them somewhat artificial however I am faced with a real life one today. There are course notes for this forthcoming tour, a special features notice on a large Crown Court bill, a Peer Review appeal, a mock peer review sample sitting there saying read me and a couple of even less interesting tasks.

Probably have to be the training notes.

We will not be discussing football here for some time to come.

We have just received the result of my final Cost Committee ever. As anticipated this was a success returning a Cat 1 outcome. This will give my memories of the Contract Compliance Wars a somewhat rosier glow.

The final score - we won, or rather they lost, four out of five.

I am trapped at home today having somehow managed to lose both my sets of car keys! I have wasted a huge amount of time trying to find them too (the main set is now in Coventry with Andy). Given that, and because it is a Friday, I will dispense with lengthy and potentially depressing posts on legal aid topics and put up some music from You tube.

These are one of my current favourites who by chance I got to see live in the states on my recent holiday. I can heartily recommend their recordings generally and the latest "The Crane Wife" specifically.

There is a 10 minute "directors cut" of the video here.

Dealing with a phone query surrounding the new Mags standard fee regime has put me in mind of a discussion we had yesterday afternoon. I am aware that we are now to refer to "main urban areas" as "designated areas" for standard fee purposes. That said the original intent was to differentiate town from country.

If you are planning a day trip this weekend you may therefore consider this. Morpeth is in a designated area (urban) whilst we at JRS HQ are not i.e. in the country.

We will be happy to recommend things to do on a sunny Sunday afternoon if you choose Teesside as your destination.

The Gazette reports on the latest body of Lawyers litigating against the Commission. This time it is the Society of Asian Lawyers and the Black Solicitors Network. Carters proposals will definitely, in our view, disproportionately impact on smaller firms and given that ethnic minority firms are over-represented amongst such firms their point seems well made.

At the front of the line there does seem to be at lest a minor success over the Duty Scheme consultation. This will have the benefit of giving the LSC arm ache as they will have to put their finger in their ears and sing loudly for slightly longer.

I don't go in for that regional stereotyping thing so I make no claims that its the extra friendly nature of our North East clients which makes working in this part of the world so enjoyable. To be frank it is probably the shorter travel times and greater knowledge of the roads which makes this so.

There is however one thing in particular which is entirely unique to this area - Pease Pudding. If you have never come across this it is a NE delicacy which transforms a ham sandwich (or dry bread if you are a vegetarian). I used to be able to pick up a half-stottie version from the A19 Cafe (Ron Perry's) just north of Hartlepool on every journey north, but not so the last few attempts.

Today my clients provided just this for lunch, fantastic!

If you have never tried it here is a recipe. Delia's is wrong - she uses green marrow-fat peas.

To the much heralded redesign of the site! It is all but complete, few minor changes on the sidebar still to do, but otherwise it is fully operational from today (and we couldn't wait any longer). That said any thoughts on further improvement, or glitches you spot, will be gratefully received.

We think it looks great - well we would wouldn't we - much more up to date feel, and as Sandra put it "cleaner". Let us know what you think.

2 years and 550 posts until we do it again.

Further to this we received a fresh PR appeal yesterday. They are another firm who, with hindsight, wish they had not expressed an interest in the VHCC Panel and who now have a somewhat bigger problem to deal with.

On a first glance, and without the files to hand, the first thing that strikes me is the low number of "major areas of concern" on which the Cat 4 "below competence" outcome is based. There are just 6 of these . At my elbow are 5 threshold competent results with recorded MACs ranging between 6 and 12, only one Cat 3 has a single finding a this critical point in the report.

What is more I have 4, Cat 2 results containing MACs, which as such expressly excludes the recording of this outcome. As we have said before consistency, at least from where we are sitting, is not what is should be for such a fundamentally important assessment.

I meant to mention the changes to the LSC website last week. The main one of these is the introduction of a "what's new" section which is presumably desdigned to make browsing easier for anoraks like me.

A quick look today shows an interesting new vacancy at the LSC and a press release about the Gateshead CLAC. The job title for the former is interesting given our previous discussion about Transformers.

What I went on the site to find, thanks to shove in the right direction from the ever vigilant Andrew Keogh, the proposed VHCC Panel contract, is however not sited in this new section of the site. Strange.

UPDATE

Richard Miller at the LAPG comments on the CLAC development as follows:

"The new service involves well known local solicitors with good reputations, working alongside nationally respected agencies. We are therefore confident that the quality of advice provided through these organisations will be good. What remains to be seen is whether the arrangements make any improvement in practice to the way clients access legal services, and whether any such improvement is sufficient to justify the cost of the tendering round, and the money spent on restructuring the services rather than providing them."

I tend to agree that this looks like moving chairs around rather than a major new development - they all have existing contracts don't they. Doubtless the evaluation will suggest significant "added value" for clients a couple of years down the line. Or is that too cynical.

Sandra recently came across these people who run a massive data base of CPS courses. They are going to be on the sidebar here once the redesigned of the site is complete. In the meantime you might want to bookmark them.

Unlikely as it might seem, yesterday I was engaged in some idle speculation with a client concerning the duty rota fiasco, sorry minor technical hitch. We both were fervently hoping that the data supplied to Carter was not equally "robust". On the same theme we have previously had a pop at the statistical drivetime assumptions underpinning the proposed new boundaries.

Now I might be wrong but surely these are the easy tasks on the road "best value tendering". That being the case, and October 2008 being not that far away, we concluded hoping that some form of dry run, or like exercise, be undertaken shortly to build confidence amongst suppliers.

My own contribution on this point?

Perhaps they could try organising one of these at somewhere like this. They might even wish to consider the following advice too:

"If anybody ever wants to organise a piss up in a brewery, I suggest they do not go and ask the management of Royal Mail how to do it."

Mark Francois, MP, Commons Hansard, 5 July 2004

I'd turn up if invited!

Todays job, some way down the road from Middlesbrough, seems likely to become an increasingly frequent part of our work - detailed pre-Carter planning with a client firm. The firm is question is one who initially saw the proposals as potentially beneficial and might even be described as a Carter target firm. It is beginning to look as though that transition may not be as seamless as first hoped however. On the other hand they at least have the flexibility to undertake such an exercise whereas many other smaller outfits have significantly less room for manoeuvre.

So shave, suit on, leave the Peer Review files for tomorrow and back in the car - remembering of course to drive on the left side of the road.

In recent years I have spoken on a number of occasions at the same events as Stephen Hewitt of Fisher Meredith - usually regarding Preferred Supplier. The following letter, to the LSC, was reproduced in an excellent article in the most recent issue of Independent Lawyer (worth a subscription if you do not already have one). With his kind permission we reproduce it here:

LSC Unified Contract

We at Fisher Meredith, together with other firms across the country, took a stand on Friday against being bullied into signing this inequitable and destructive contract.

Our staff were unanimous in their opposition to what you seek to impose on us and the lawyers instructed by our professional body could not advise any firm to sign. That contract, together with the fees and rates proposed, will spell the end of legal aid for all good suppliers. It is a disgrace.

Through its action, and those of the DCA and Lord Chancellor, you have poisoned the relationship with all those firms across the country who have tried their hardest and applied their experience and expertise for many years to provide access to justice for the socially disadvantaged – and you have made it impossible for the scheme itself to continue in the long term. The Commission and the politicians responsible should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves today and henceforth.

Our staff are naturally terribly worried about their own commitments. They want to get on with their service to their clients. How long we shall be able to do this is of course in doubt because of your approach to legal aid in the future. We are therefore reluctantly having to sign. We do so under protest and without prejudice to our contention that it is unacceptable as a way forward and that several clauses are unlawful; also under protest as to the appalling rates of pay you propose which will make it non viable in the longer term.

We were your first preferred supplier and you have treated us appallingly.

Yours in anger and disappointment.

Eileen Pembridge and Stephen Hewitt

It seems to capture the mood and atmosphere very well. That a such vocal advocate of the Preferred Supplier Scheme, designed to deliver "excellent partnership working", now corresponds in such terms is, I think, the most damming indictment of the current situation imaginable.

We obviously offer the LSC the right of reply on these pages.

The latest Peer Review result, Threshold Competence, concurred with our assessment of the sample. It does however once again confirm our concerns about the (re)emergence of inconsistency. Most telling are that certain issues recorded as "other areas of concern" are clearly more significant than issues we have previously seen recorded as "major areas of concern" and leading to "below competence" outcomes. I can think of one firm in particular, who we assisted appeal, who will find this particularly galling.

It also confirms the very candid views of a recent Peer Reviewer who was a delegate on our last training tour. He was highly critical of the lack of training and ongoing monitoring involved in the operation of the scheme and expressed the view that he could not see how any appeal could fail to succeed. A representative of the firm above managed to put him right on this point at half time.

Prediction time - this will become a major recurring theme as the scheme "rolls out". We are trying to maintain, unfortunately retrospectively, a register of results so that these inconsistencies can be pointed out and/or utilised, comparatively, in appeals. We would be very grateful for any contributions to this archive and obviously these will be treated in the strictest confidence (unless you get excellent of course and want this publicising as widely as possible).

I have kept up with news, especially the duty rota saga, via the BillBerry. That this will now be subject to litigation was equally as predictable as that they would get it wrong in the first place.

As I left the UK a fortnight ago the correspondence under consideration was discussed here. Subsequent to that were the somewhat triumphalist press releases following the 94% sign-up to the new civil contract. Derek Hill's notification of the delay in implementation of the new rotas is, perhaps not surprisingly, less bullish. Given that they have seemingly abandoned their preferred option (number 1) due to its impracticality in "these types of methodologies" and have reverted to Option 2 (snapshot of number of Duty Solicitors as of November 2006), this is hardly surprising too. He also deploys the "working together" theme utilised in this style of conciliatory correspondence. Having just returned from the USA and remembering the Westerns of my youth the title of this post obviously picked itself.

UPDATE

Here is Bindmans pre-action letter which Nigel mentions in the comments.

First day back in the office so I am going through the usual backlog of messages etc. Fortunately the team seem to be on top of things so this has been a much less trying task (Spam excluded) than in previous years. Most pleasing amongst these is the one CCA result notified during my vacation, a Cat 2 down to Cat 1. The one other outstanding result remains just that, outstanding - must be down to the move of the London Regional Office.

That aside it appears to have been a fairly routine fortnight.

Sandra Ozturk writes:

All the feedback comments below came from one of our regular training delegates - you know who you are - and you did make us laugh - we thought we would share this witty repartee with everyone to possibly cheer up a gloomy Monday (not sunny up North today I can tell you):

“A face like Grey Wallace from MasterChef Goes Large, with knowledge of the intimate workings of the LSC, similar to Greg’s knowledge of exotic fruit & vegetables” . . .

“A more fun afternoon I have not had since my last visit for root canal work” . . .

“Here is a man who had the foresight 10 years ago to realise that a growth business was legal consulting and NOT Legal Aid” . . .

“Simon’s knowledge is such that he must surely come into the category of “sad ?*!@#~&” – Get a Life” . . .

“A course that promised so much, and yet in real terms delivered only a free mouse-mat”.
======================================================

If you would like to take part in the next round of training updates, Simon is working with Rodney Warren in May on the Carter Comprehensive Update tour. Please contact us or TMT Training for further details.

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible . . .

Simon Pottinger returns from the USA this week

. . . this blog is named as a result of our Mr Pottinger's jibes about my allegedly portly appearance . . . and with reference to the potential for getting fatter wallets!

Our tip for the National has to be "Simon" . . . yes, check the list, he is not in the States, but preparing to hurdle over 30 fences at Aintree.

Jumping over the LSC's ever-increasing hurdles is not enough for this thoroughbred, and at reasonable odds, perhaps this is a chance for us all to actually make some money?!

Any other (proper) tips are welcome ....

Our comments yesterday with regard to the Market stability Measures and in particular, the Police Station Duty Slot allocation have proven correct.

One mouse mat is presently being despatched to our Bradford clients, who, after a number of telephone calls, managed to obtain the letter from the LSC (yet another one from Derek Hill) confirming that the slot allocation for Police Station Duty work will remain the same in May 2007, postponing the implementation of the new rotas until June 2007. The letter is somewhat convoluted, but reading between the lines, we believe there are clearly some serious issues with the data upon which the LSC wish to rely.

We now await with interest as to what option they choose to adopt after – you guessed it - another period of consultation with representative bodies.

If you have not already had sight of this letter, please contact our office for a copy (tel: 01642 225553) or send an email request to jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk.

STOP PRESS

We understand from speaking to our clients that a letter is to be sent to all Crime Practitioners  confirming that the LSC policy on duty allocation is to be reviewed next month and that the May 2007 slots will be allocated in the same way as the April 2007 allocation.  [Free mouse-mat to the first person to fax a copy to us on 01642 225554].

The LSC concede that there were “minor (sic) errors” with the data they based their original calculations on; hence the change of mind. 

October 2007 now 1/4 favourite for the implementation of the new allocation process?  April 2008 anyone?

Steve Barnes writes:

Given that the Grand National is imminent ….

…. they’re off …. well, nearly ….

The 12th February 2007 Duty Allocation proposals are to be put on hold.

We were informed last week, by a firm in the North West, that one of the London co-ordinators for the new Duty Slot allocation process has admitted that they have been inundated with so many representations that they are struggling.  Subsequently, the (delayed) 1st May 2007 implementation date is likely to be put back further.

Possibly the National that never was?  Or is October 2007 now more likely?  Thoughts? and what odds will you offer me on my prediction(s)?

I have been promising a retrospective on the Cost Committee years ever since their demise in October last year, but have held off until my final hearing. This seems finally to have happened.

On balance I will not miss this part of our work, despite the large majority of hearings being at least partly successful. There was a period during the Contract Compliance Wars, when these were so thick and fast that adrenaline took over and carried us through. That said, the daily grind of repetitive arguments began to grate and spending so much time with understandably depressed/disgruntled clients proved somewhat contagious.

Ultimately, the ever-present responsibility of running appeals which had significant, and on occasion firm threatening, recoupments at stake, sometimes running into 6 figures, which made it so draining. The occasional, and only on one occasion unsuccessful, CDS 7 appeals, generally against disallowed enhancement provided a bit of light relief.

Most CCs were friendly and receptive and I experienced less than half a dozen truly unacceptable hearings, one of which represented the very worst day of my life in JRS. (Others have reported similar experiences with the same Chairman). I could name a small bunch, less than 6, of Chairmen (they were men) who were unfit for the role, and probably a similar number with complete command of their brief and the background materials. My assessment of the latter is made regardless of the outcome for my clients. In the main, most did an adequate, if slightly timid job, generally ensuring a fair hearing. The influence of wing members was on the whole disappointing - especially when the Chairman was out of line. (There were notable exceptions to this, at least one of whom has been "punished" by not a single sitting as a new scheme adjudicator since). My main concern moving forward is that it will not be the small band of very capable members who will now be sitting as single adjudicators.

In the final analysis, I think the loss of the CC is to be mourned, if for no other reason for its transparency. As this reverts to largely considering single files for assessment, the actual cost savings of the new arrangements probably do not deliver cost benefit against that background.

That other small group of committee members who did not give my clients a fair break, and if they are reading this they will know who they are, I hope with hindsight you feel ashamed of yourselves.

Simon Pottinger

With "Old Mr Grace", as we call him, a continent away, I now have chance to avenge this from last year.

As two of our clients have recently asked, has our very own Senior Partner started moonlighting on MasterChef Goes Large?

Comments & suggestions gleefully accepted . . .

Sandra Oz

Friend of this site, and fellow veteran of the Contract Compliance Wars, Nick Armstrong of Counsel is on the move. He will shortly be having a new, and hopefully more flattering photo taken to be put up here alongside my old college day's mate and now Legal Services Commissioner David Wolfe . We think his formal start date is April 10th - so those of our clients who have instructed him (with generally good outcomes) know where to find him from then.

We wish him all the best both with this move and his forthcoming first child.

Simon Pottinger

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT RICHARD MILLER 020 7960 6068

LONDON 03/04/2007

LAPG CONDEMNS “ABUSE OF POWER” BY “LOATHED” LSC

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today condemned the LSC’s “abuse of power” which saw the majority of legal aid solicitors sign the new unified contract with a heavy heart.

LAPG Chair Roy Morgan said, “The LSC is required to act as a responsible public body, acting reasonably. It appears that in Britain today, a responsible public body is one that uses economic duress, and questionable threats to remove firms’ current business, to force suppliers to sign a contract; and not just any contract, but one that was so fundamentally flawed that a firm of commercial contract lawyers has said they would recommend that a client should not sign it.”

Director Richard Miller said, “This was an abuse of power by the LSC that will not lightly be forgotten or forgiven. I have seen many of the letters firms sent in with their signed contracts. Even in the worst days of franchising and contracting from the past fifteen years, I have never seen anything approaching the degree of contempt and loathing expressed in them. This is typified by the letter from 94 firms in the Times yesterday (Monday), denouncing the LSC for its ‘cynical’ actions and decrying ‘those who are driving the process of destruction of legal aid’.”

He continued, “The forcing through of this contract highlighted the worrying extent of the power the Government has over the lawyers whose job is to stand up for the rights of ordinary citizens. What does it say about the independence of those lawyers, who almost universally feel that the changes heralded by this contract will harm clients greatly, when the Government can impose its will on them by means of economic pressure?”

In response to the news that the LSC would shortly be “providing details of a new civil bid round as part of the CLS Strategy for improving access to joined-up services”, Miller commented, “Presumably therefore, some of the firms who returned their signed contracts will be getting their termination notices almost by return, in order to enable the LSC to run its bid round. How can any business be expected to survive in this system? LAPG joins with the Law Society in saying that it has no confidence in the ability of the LSC to implement this change programme in a manner that will ensure a sustainable legal aid system.”

LAPG is an independent grass roots movement, representing over 500 firms at the heart of the provision of publicly funded legal services. Website www.lapg.co.uk

END OF RELEASE
=====================================================================
Simon Pottinger adds [from the States]:

"Richard might have said that any firm advising a client to sign such a contract would probably be found "below competence" or worse on Peer Review".

Simon Pottinger writes:

My final Cost Committee hearing last week was certainly a better one than the two previous and I will now look back on this era with a somewhat rosier glow. We confidently predict a Category 1CCA gradation as a result.

The most interesting point relates to our long standing battle to gain some leverage on the "General Findings" rules, Civil and Crime. These are the rules under which the power to affect any cash "extrapolations" and recoupments were made - often with disastrous impact upon firms. For over 2 years we have tried to get CCs to engage on this point with limited success. More often we have had met with miscomprehension, timidity and confusion, following (mis)advice from Committee Clerks or even adjournments for skeleton arguments.

On one or two occasions we did win agreement with our arguments that, initially, the CC does have the power to consider, and rule upon, the appropriateness of a General Finding. Most commonly we made these arguments where a single perverse file was "unrepresentative" of the firm’s usual practice and consequently had an unfair impact upon the audit rating. More often though, we had confusion, often orchestrated by the LSC's representatives’ incomprehension of their own rules, guidance and issues like "Audit Precision".

I began to remake the argument on Wednesday last, to be stopped by the Chairman who directed we have a short adjournment (less than 30 mins) for legal advice from the LSC to be sought. On our return he read from what was described as an Induction Guide for CC members, which I have not seen, to the effect that they both had jurisdiction in such matters and specifically could "exclude from the audit sample a rogue file".

Given that the CCA process is now all but finished and that the "General Finding" on a Cat 2 CCA outcome is the single most important factor for a firm in such circumstances, why has this Guidance only just appeared now? More importantly, why was this interpretation, identical to our own, not published to appellants and in the forefront of the minds of every LSC CC Clerk at every CCA Appeal throughout this assessment technique’s disgraceful history? Instead of the pitched battle we had at times, why could it not be as simple as it was last week?

There are very many firms who will have been prejudiced because of this, often with severe financial penalty. If there is anyone out there who can think of a way in which this can be retrospectively revisited, we would love to here from you.

Last thing on Friday two further JRS clients reported Category 2, Competence Plus Criminal Peer Review outcomes. Well done both.

Simon is teaming up with Rodney Warren and TMT again to bring you an update of last years very popular Carter Comprehensive Course.

The tour dates are as follows:

9th May
Newcastle

5th June
London

You can get a booking form here: Download file