With VHCC bidding deadline passed we return to the day-to-day grind. So yesterday was back to Peer Review training. In this context I did recently spot the long awaited Family: Improving your Quality Guide.

Happy reading.

On the same PR theme, and by way of balance, here is the LSC CE's response, to recent criticisms of the scheme by the Reviewers themselves.

Quality for clients is as fundamental to legal aid reform as improving access and value – the reforms aim to raise quality, not just maintain it.

Despite claims from some peer reviewers (see [2007] Gazette, 12 July, 15), quality need not cost more. Peer review data for legal aid from the regulatory impact assessment for Legal Aid Reform: The Way Ahead shows that higher quality is often no more expensive, and in many cases costs less, than average quality. In any case, the civil fixed fees do not reduce the overall budget – most providers will receive more than they do now for such work.

In their letters, the crime and family peer reviewers point out that they, in isolation, cannot assure quality. We agree. The work of high-quality peer reviewers is essential, but alongside this we have introduced other measures to monitor and improve quality for clients.

We will be monitoring ‘case mix’ to ensure providers continue to take on the more complex and time-consuming cases under fixed fees. Any providers failing to do so will be in breach of their contract. Exceptionally complex cases can still be paid at hourly rates.

Over the past year, we have run workshops for more than 1,000 legal aid firms and agencies to prepare them for peer review and share best practice from other providers on improving quality. In addition, we have produced a series of guides for improving performance across crime and civil areas, which are available on our website.

We will shortly be consulting upon our proposals for the introduction of best value tendering for criminal defence work. The consultation will cover the quality requirements for entry in the tendering process and plans for ongoing contract management.

Poor advice can be worse than no advice at all. We will only award contracts to firms that meet a strict quality threshold at peer review, which is backed by the Law Society and remains the preferred option for audit by all. No one need doubt that the commission wants to work in partnership with providers to ensure legal aid clients receive the high-quality services to which they are entitled.

Carolyn Regan, Chief Executive, Legal Services Commission, London

LAPG WELCOMES JUDICIAL REVIEW RESULT
 
The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today welcomed the judgement of Mr Justice Beatson in the Law Society’s claim for judicial review of the Legal Services Commission’s Unified Contract. The case primarily challenged the LSC’s extensive right to amend the contract as being inconsistent with European procurement legislation. The Court agreed that the LSC had not complied with its legal obligations.
 
In the judgement, Beatson J observed that the LSC may have to undertake a new contracting procedure if "the LSC seeks to make amendments which alter the economic balance of the contract to the disadvantage of those who have entered into the Unified Contract, or to the disadvantage of some of them," rather than being entitled to rely on the amendment provisions. Furthermore, the right to amend peer review processes and key performance indicators was held to be incompatible with the obligation to set out technical requirements in the contract documentation.
 
LAPG Director Richard Miller said, "At long last, we have seen the Legal Services Commission held to account after trampling on the rights of the profession. We hope they will take from this the message that they are not above the law. Maybe we can now start to re-establish reasonable dialogue with a body that understands there are limits to its powers. We would prefer to find a consensual way forward, rather than ending up back before the Courts once again, but that depends on the LSC taking a more reasoned approach in future."
 
He continued, "Unfortunately, the initial signs are not good. The LSC’s own response to this judgement demonstrates no humility, no acknowledgement of their failure to comply with the law and a denial that the judgement has any implications for the introduction of fixed fees, which clearly 'alter the economic balance of the contract to the disadvantage of [some of] those who have entered into the Unified Contract'. We remain willing to talk to the LSC, but only if they are going to pay due regard to their legal obligations."

The LSC's take on things is here .

Were they watching the same match?

If you are familiar with The F Word you might not be surprised to know that our office has been not unlike Ramsey's kitchen this week. And so we sign off this week in similar style.

Exclusion criteria

Essential criteria

Desirable criteria

Declarations

Bound copies

Loose copy

CD ROM

12 Noon deadline

Courier

DONE

As you can quickly establish this weeks posts have been unashamedly, but obviously monotonously for non-bidders, almost entirely about the VHCC Auction.

The phone traffic in this office has been unbelievable and bidders experience unprintable. Confidentiality precludes me divulging little more than the following paraphrase from a client's account of a recent phone conversation with the VHCC Team. I would like to canvass bidders to respond in the comments box.

"Well I designed it and it and I think it is a pretty easy application to complete"

Given that one of today's callers suggested that the creator "should be shot" we will not divulge his identity.

Sandra Dolly writes:

Independent Lawyer - July/August 2007 Issue - pages 8 & 9:

"Peer Reviewers are on the brink of revolt as they fear that the quality monitoring process has been 'hijacked' and that they are being 'used'".

DOH!

When our VHCC Call Centre closes down, turns off its lights, pulls down the shutters and is put in mothballs until the next, similar ill-conceived act of madness, I might write up my thoughts on this

Until then one urgent point and something to drive you mad.

1 Bid question EC8 must be completed in the NEGATIVE.

2 Apparently, and after the closure of the Q & A process, they have indicated that ring-binders constitute "hard bound copies". I will put up the confirmatory e-mail when I get a copy.

Regulars will probably remember our discussions concerning Autorecbots.

Now the Transformers appear to have their own movie.

"Choose your side - Protect or Destroy"

Here is news of the CDS Call Centres.

We however are currently a VHCC Call Centre. Your call is currently being held in a queue however it is of value to us so please do not hang up!

LSC is moving towards having only "three business delivery centres" from 23rd July.

Here is some vaguely interactive "help" in finding out where your work will be processed.

You can probably imagine that the return to work in the final week of "VHCCs Under the Hammer" was always likely to be a little hectic. Add to that the usual backlog of general enquiries, a justifiably very angry client himself now on holiday and at loggerheads with the LSC, the lack of a Billberry charger in the office, the office being too hot (yes too hot) and my car being partially broken and you will understand that this is not a completely smooth home coming.

Add to that more reading - when's my next holiday?

Whilst it might appear vain to focus on an FAQ submitted by ourselves this does seem worthy of some comment. The LSC have fundamentally changes their attitude to self employed litigators (consultants) in Q. numbers 33, 71 & 81. This is an issue we have had numerous and lengthy phone conversations about. If this is a live and pertinent issue with regard to your (potential) application please give us a call.

Also can we stress that Thursday 26th July i.e. THIS THURSDAY is essentially the deadline. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, Wednesday would be better.

While Mr Pottinger is at a place in the sun we are very very busy in Middlesbrough, promoting our next round of JRS CPD Training Events. Simon's September UK Tour will cover Leeds/Bradford, Gateshead/Newcastle, Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff and London. As this is once again such a crucial time for Legal Aid suppliers I have added Birmingham and Cardiff to our usual venues.

Early Scores on the Doors show Leeds/Bradford steaming into the lead . . . information & booking forms will be landing on your desk in the next few days, but you can always call us on 01642 225553, send a fax to 01642-225554 or email jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk to reserve your place(s).

We look forward to seeing you there.

Sandra and Joanna

Another CLSA Bulletin just received:

17 July 2007 Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme

The LSC has published a consultation paper in respect of the proposed implementation of the Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme. The paper can be found at http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/criminal/consultations.asp.

A web based calculator has been put together to allow firms to calculate the impact of these proposals upon their fees. This is a repeat of a survey launched last year that revealed results that persuaded the LSC to revise the scheme.

We urge members to access the calculator and input data to assist us and other practitioner organisations in collating data to make further submissions to the LSC and to access the calculator and data input forms at http://www.lccsa.org.uk/applications/carterstatisticsmanager/login.asp.

We received this bulletin from the CLSA today:

Invitation to CLSA members who are owners of London firms
Wednesday 25th July 2007 6.00-8.00pm
Main Hall - Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1 tube: Holborn

The figures will be provided in an entirely anonymous fashion.

We have just received the following Press Release:

Monday 16 July 2007

LAPG Chairman, Roy Morgan said, "Richard's hard work and dedication to legal aid has earned him enormous respect from the legal profession. He will be a hard act to follow. LAPG wishes Richard every success in his new position to promote and improve access for the public to a
sustainable legal aid profession. We will continue to support him and harmonise our work with New Law Society to enhance high level representation for legal aid practitioners in these troubled times."

On behalf of Simon Pottinger and the JRS Team, we wish Richard Miller all the best in his new role.

Is Peer Review beginning to fray at the edges. Remember where you heard it first.

I have a rush job on 2 live PR samples to do and obviously more earache over "VHCC Challenge" is anticipated. Most importantly I obviously have to go have my back waxed, buy a new man bag and have my last, pre pool, tanning session before my holiday too. So only a short post today.

As it is Friday here is a Youtube clip:

Especially for those of you who wondered what happened to Fatima Whitbead.

The "VHCC in the Attic" phone enquiry explosion has now begun in earnest. I now have a seriously sore right ear from pressing my under performing mobile to my ear whilst listening to the full, manic range of bid inspired psychosis. The scope of callers veers from the clutching at straws optimist to the unnecessarily paranoid pessimist. Most if not all have the tell tale panicky tone of voice of people on the edge of reason.

This is understandable not least given that the LSC provided Q & A document is now of such a size to demonstrate to the casual observer that the original bid documentation was not quite as transparent as it might have been. We have also found that you only really get a good working overview when you've run through the application forms with three of four firms.

Oh there it goes again!

This post will explain the background to this new series and the second "top tip" similarly relates to phone contact with law firms:

"Solicitors why not provide your receptionist with a pad of paper and a pencil so that they can take messages from callers".

Have just about finished the latest PR appeal (well "representations" actually). If you missed my opening lines you can read them here.

This was not the only "error of fact" either so with a bit of luck another win to add to the 1.5 so far recorded - not a good record I admit.

I can now concentrate on the growing pile of VHCC applications on the desk opposite which are awaiting some JRS input.

Then it's off to town to replace more items lost/stolen in my case at LHR - that's right it's still not turned up. After that follows a drive to the West Midlands and "surf and turf" in the sad commercial travellers corner of the hotel. Some lucky punters get shouted at about Peer Review tomorrow.

2 more days of VHCC and my reward a week in the sun - don't worry other VHCC bidders I have the entire last week of the month set aside for nothing but "Cases Under the Hammer".

Wh have received this notification from the CLSA

"All members are notified that there is a meeting at the Conway Hall, London on the 11th July 2007 at 6pm to discuss what action to take, if any, in relation to the Crown Court following on from the LSCs proposals for remuneration. The CLSA is not holding this meeting we are merely advising our members of its existence".

I chose my words carefully when reporting the tragic death of JRS client Ranee Bassi. The Gazette last week quoted her brother Mandeep who is less circumspect.

If anyone thinks that his are simply the words of a close relative striking out in grief and anger may I say, from a more dispassionate perspective, that he is absolutely correct.

You, like me, will probably read the words, and proposed action, of the "LSC spokesman" with some cynicism. It is, I think, an inadequate response and that some form of independent inquiry would be far more appropriate. In any event I do intend to offer evidence in whatever form or forum finally considers these events. I shall also be contacting the other firms, especially the other female sole practitioners from an ethnic background, targeted during this disgraceful episode.

Any contributions from readers of this site would be gratefully received.

When I get home tonight I intend to cook tea, as a form of therapy, and listen to the three albums I bought this week by - Editors, Ash and Arcade Fire. Here is a live clip of the latter, not the best quality but sounds ok played loud.

Grey, wet, miserable Friday. Tired from a poor nights sleep due to niggly neck. No bag yet, just had a call still not found at LHR, so forced to start buying replacements e.g. phone chargers. They are still digging up the same bit of road on my journey to work which has causes intermittent 15 minute delays all year. Headlight out on the car.

Mood not generally improved by the PR appeal I am working on - how about this:

"there were some very good results achieved at court suggesting a good standard of advocacy"

however it is still a Cat 4 outcome. It's not about the job you do its about how your write it down- sh*&e!

The client who sent us flowers and wine as a thank you (on top of our reassuringly expensive fees) has been the only thing to break the gloom. Roll on close of play and a tea time pint.

CHEERING UP A BIT

Have just included this into my current appeal with regard to the first file I have looked at:

The reviewer criticises the firm for failing to advise on “venue” on a summary only matter. This basic error is compounded by a failure to identify that express advice regarding “summary only” matters was provided to the client. This must call the entire conduct of the review into question.

If you are not familiar with Viz Comic (which is understandable given that it is often childish and puerile and appeals only to big kids like me) you will have missed out their fantastic "Top Tips" section. This replicates the type of barroom wisdom often found at the bottom of tabloid letters pages. You can read 195 examples here.

My recent favourite (8/195) reads as follows:

DAILY MAIL EDITORS. Confuse your readers by claiming that asylum seekers are the natural predators of paedophiles

I am often put in mind of such pearls during contact with the profession and so am starting here a law specific set of top tips, LATTs, to help and guide the developing post Carter law firms.

So here is the first in an irregular series:

No 1

Solicitors why not put the person in the firm with the worst hearing, least understanding of the switchboard and the poorest communication skills on reception so as to enhance your clients experience of your firm.

Send your own for inclusion.

Here I sit angry and depressed in equal measure, but for sure without yesterdays suitecase containing my laptop and data projector, lost between LHR and DTV airports. (I had a 2.5 hour delay too!). With all the training currently in the diary this, of course, makes things extremely tense and I will now lose a significant part of today trying to get my stuff back.

I have uttered paranoid ramblings about the secrative workings of the "Autorecbots", and their plans to get me, before. Surely this is just a coincidence?

UPDATE

Every single bag except mine has been recovered. I now believe my paranoia to be entirely justified.

For many years we have routinely had to respond negatively to requests to undertake civil cost drafting. Put simply, we have the expertise and experience in the Criminal field, but not elsewhere. It is with some excitement therefore that we are now able to offer
such a service. If you are interested, or have just found out about our CDS service, give us a ring.

Off to test post Glasgow security at DTV Airport then down to London (the radio tells me that certain of the tubes are closed etc. so heavens knows when I will get to my destination). I imagine there are Teesside versions of this guy just in case.

This will involve two days dealing with Peer Review followed by the hasty preparation of a further appeal on Thursday and Friday. We still await the results on the last two and yesterdays phone calls suggest no let up in file requests.

The latest consultation is published - happy reading.

"VHCC under the Hammer" moves on to a different venue today with bids up for consideration. Having now been involved in a number of preparatory sessions the only linking factor is the incredulity of (senior) members of the profession to the process - feelings I share. We tend to have differing views of the likely market impact and certainly the "smaller" firms tend to be pessimistic as to their own chances. That said the process seems not to be as transparent as it might and given Bindmans current BOGOF deal on JRs, one imagines that the first large firm not to succeed will take advantage of that.