There are a limited number of opportunities to expand your civil contracts currently available. This tendering round has a closing date of 4 pm Tuesday 13th November except in Mental Health which has an extended deadline of Wednesday 28th November - same 4 pm cut off.

If you require any help give us a ring.

As ever though there is an element in this process which managed to raise a smile. The final "in not more the 500 words" section of the form is, apparently, to be used as a potential "Tie Breaker". That's right a tie breaker.

Now we fully appreciate that the use of a "pick it out of a hat" approach to such situations is now out of date. We do however feel that reverting to a 70's competition style, usually associated with confectionary, is also somewhat dated.

By way of an alternative can we propose a mechanism of which followers of the Sky Sports programme, Soccer AM will be aware - a Dance Off.

Heres how it works:

Got an invite to a 50th birthday party yesterday with the dress code -"dress to impress".

Any ideas what this means?

Civil and Criminal scheme telephone enquiries, forthcoming deadlines, an urgent Point of Principle application to write with this afternoons course (with a big audience) to do final prep for - so little time for blogging.

I also reiterate my prediction of fireworks on bonfire night.

Our CMRF and CDS 6 Wizards are making slow progress at the very least we will have a stop-gap alternative for November billing even if my prediction proves false. Give your IT providers the benefit of the doubt too, for once it genuinely not their fault.

PS Lots of Civil laminates are now available from the office - we too have been accused of exploiting child labour!

We reported the final Law Society guidance on CDS Contract signature last week. The Gazette leads with it in the latest issue. By now you will be aware that they cannot say that the contract is "unlawful" and that the decision on signature is one for individual firms.

So to repeat the deadline is;

Wednesday 31st October at 4 pm.

Don't miss it if you intend to sign.

UPDATE

Apparently the 4 pm deadline is being taken so seriously that Autorecbots at one of the Regional Offices were observed earlier today contingency planning how to be sure that applicants have entered the building and applied not a minute too late.

Get there early or send it recorded delivery.

Given the length of time I've spent on the phone today there really was only one choice for this Friday's song.

Just advising an applicant for a new January CDS contract on what has been an unbelievably busy day on the phones.

I am asked to advise upon an appropriate answer to D4.5 on the SQM Supervisor self declaration form with regard to mechanisms for maintaining an up to date knowledge of law and practice.

My advice?

"I have a radio in my head through which I receive regular CPD communications".

The all new CMRF Wizard, necessary for your next batch of contract reporting, is nearly ready. All we need now is access to an LSC promised trial upload site, to test out if it works. We are currently therefore, at the mercy of our large metallic overlords.

We will mail you (if you are on our e-mail update list) when the final version is ready.

Off shouting in Manchester but now in a rush due to my own incompetence (wallet left at home).

Sandra is finishing off the course packs as we speak using "double barrelled" laminators. Those civil suppliers who have always been jealous of their criminal colleagues because they get this fantastic claim code laminate need no longer be green with envy.

We have today completed not one but 2 new Civil laminates one containing the Family "Case Stage" and the "substantive benefit" outcome codes, the other a break down of the standard and graduated fees.

Course delegates will get one however a call or an e-mail to the office will also secure one of these highly prized items.

I posted this on Monday, with the following commentary on Contract Compliance Auditing:

Someone prophesised a return to this discredited form of assessment and true to form a client received a file request last week. It is to be hoped that this is not the case not least for my own quality of life, especially on Sunday afternoons.

"True to form" a second almost identical request has turned up today. It is not, in our opinion, a return to the Contract Compliance Wars, rather the first shots in an entirely new approach - a "robust auditing" alternative to the demise of the Preferred Supplier Scheme - as we have been anticipating.

If you are affected please use our free phone lines. Or comment below.

It's long way from the "worst place to live in in the UK" to the second best . And yet this is where I am. My hotel, chosen partly for having good food, cannot feed me (full) and so I have to head out on a search round town (they have beggars too). A half decent steak, plus a pint in a Wetherspoons full of kids later, do I really feel this degree of difference. Nah, and of course I would much rather be home.

Not saying it isn't a lovely town mind, and might go round the Cathedral in the morning.

The Law Society"s definitive guidance upon signature of the January 2008, 6 Month CDS Contract is here.

As anticipated it is, ultimately, down to you!

We have just received notification of another PR Category 4 result being reviewed up to a Category 3. Things are on a bit of a roll at the minute.

The most recent CCA appeal is nearly in the can having taken significantly longer than anticipated. It reminds me, and not in a good way, of the drudge of finding different ways to argue against a determination of "non-chargeable administrative letter".

Someone prophesised a return to this discredited form of assessment and true to form a client received a file request last week. It is to be hoped that this is not the case not least for my own quality of life, especially on Sunday afternoons.

Obviously the sentiments involved in decisions like those below form an increasingly common feature of our conversations with the profession. The decision is not always in the negative however it would not be fair to describe those intending to continue as "enthusiastic". Steve tells me that I have used the summation of this mood "carry on regardless" twice this week - so here is a strangely perceptive musical rendition of the theme:

I paraphrase today's first item of correspondence"

"Thank you for all you help down the years but we will not be renewing our Criminal contract in January".

As Douglas Adams puts it "So long and thanks for all the fish".

I am posting from afar today whilst delivering some in-house shouting (thats CPD training for the uninitiated) so a short post only.

After yesterdays gloom how about something decidedly more cheery in the form of another Peer Review category 2 result? What's more it is their second so they are now competence plus in both of their contracted areas. Nice going. The recent run of results is distinctly encouraging.

I won't spoil the mood by talking about international football.

We (well only me really) agree entirely.

Is there anyone out there who wants to give me a bit of off the cuff advice on intellectual property.

Last weeks Gazette, post strike delayed, arrives with this somewhat gloomy article on the move into the new standard fee regime.

By coincidence this comes as I put the finishing touches to next weeks course .

By further coincidence 2 minutes before I read this quote

"Many of the best local firms have already abandoned legal aid because it is no longer economically viable and I am sure that many more will follow suit"

from the above article, I receive notice from another client firm to say exactly that.

No its not spooky it is entirely predictable.

With depressing predictability the LSC follow up the Law Society's recent adviceon CDS contract signature with a press release of their own. You will be reassured to know they seek "to reassure solicitors who are considering signing the contract".

A more substantive response to the LS concerns is to follow however there is no talk of negotiation or consultation.

This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. And I do not care, Phil Spencer, if "it's all based on official data" you and your smug, self satisfied, southern based researchers are badly mistaken. (The quality of their "research" is demonstrated by the fact that the refer to the town as a "city").

If you want the sweary version of the above just give me a ring.

Channel 4 News can go.........

That today is the deadline for this months Online billing.

Thanks to Andrew for the update, in the comment box, to Fridays last post. Here is a link to the version on the Law Society's own site. Here is the final paragraph:

"We still have the utmost concern over the ability of many professionals to deliver a proper professional service for the fees on offer under this contract. We will be providing more detailed advice by 23 October. Our advice remains, as it was when the contract was first sent out, that if you do not believe you can deliver a proper professional service for the fees on offer, then you need seriously to consider whether you should sign this contract".

The Law Society are now right up against it with regard to their self imposed deadline to provide further CDS contract guidance - which they set for today. You might have to wait until Monday now for us to pass this on - alternatively you can sit clicking the "refresh" button on their site.

Good luck Englands - have a good weekend.

At the risk of being called a hippy here is one of my all time favourite artists Sandy Denny during her time with Fairport Convention. She did loads of other stuff, including being the only person to duet with Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin. This is a fantastically atmospheric Autumn song and what a voice!

Don't forget that this month, next Monday 15th is the deadline for Online submissions.

Anyone want to nominate a Friday tune?

Is anybody having difficulties with their civil costing centre regarding the three month time limit for submitting bills? If you are, drop us a line or give me a ring would you?

If you are wondering about completion of your new CDS Contract application (whilst awaiting final LS guidance on signature) you might have come across this:

"There is no requirement for your Duty Solicitors to be employed by you at the time of your application, but you must be able to state how many you will employ on 14th January 2008, and they must send us the appropriate CDS12 no later than 30th November 2007"

Cross my palm with silver and I will tell you.

What will happen to slot allocation when a DS turns up thus named by two firms and what the sanction for non-compliance will be, remains to be seen.

N.B. take care with the "significant change" requirements when choosing which form to use.

I had a number of Autorecbot related discussions yesterday. The full Kafkaesque nature of these conversations would take too long to relate here. My initial conclusion - complete LSC confusion; what they are saying nationally to your representative bodies is either being disregarded locally or has not been properly communicated to them. Or alternatively the head office team are not being completely frank.

Given the inconsistency of approach between Regional Offices it may well be as a result of the former. If this is the case a straightforward 1 side of A4 statement on how contract reconciliation is to be managed would not be difficult, and would avoid the friction and waste of resource these "negotiations" create and consume. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that the lack of such clarity belies the real policy - "see what you can get away with regardless of the rules". Consequently firms who, under General Criminal Contract Standard Terms Part C 12B 3 and CDS Monthly Payment Rules 1.1.8 (c) who should not have their SMP reduced, rather increased, have been pressured to accept a lower payment.

Whilst the confusion over the new 6-month contract does not help this should still be possible - how about this for a start:

We will not reduce standard monthly payments unless, on a current contract year or rolling 12 month basis, you are 10% overpaid.

Oh that's what General Criminal Contract Standard Terms Part C 12B 3 already says, and it is not amended in the proposed January version.

Forward projections should allow for the 7.5% "positive balance" identified in the Monthly Payment Rules.

I don't know if this is proposed for amendment in January, certain ROs statements imply that this is the case, however it is the clearest and most importantly the currently applicable guidance. It also actually makes sense. (It was part of marketing package used to entice signature to the original GCC to boot).

So what is the plea indicated in the title? -

Could we have a definitive statement from the LSC on this point? We know that these communications are received onboard the Deathstar, come on guys help us out.

Or am I correct above in that the real unspoken policy is to drive down payments to firms by any means available and that a fair and consistent (and lawful) approach is not therefore desirable?

The anticipated response from the Law Society regarding the new GCC has been posted to their site.

Key bit of advice seems to be:

We will provide information as soon as possible on the legal, economic and regulatory issues, and no later than Friday 12 October. You may feel it prudent to defer your decision on accepting the contract until you have this information.

HAT TIP

Nigel

Do you need a bit of light relief today?

I did so I did this.

Apparently, and it looks to me like a perfectly genuine website, in a past life I was:

I don't know how you feel about it, but you were male in your last earthly incarnation. You were born somewhere in the territory of modern Austria around the year 975. Your profession was that of a entertainer, musician, poet or temple-dancer.

Seems spot on to me!

Have a go an put any interesting findings in the comments box.

Out of the blue this morning has been one of back to back calls, especially from Manchester for some reason. Billing enquiries, unlawful Autorecbot activity and, as below, CDS contracting queries etc. etc. I still have two calls to return.

With a bit of luck I might get back to Course writing later!

Whilst we await the Law Society guidance on CDS contract signature a number of aspirant new firms have been in touch for a bit of advice from us.

There are I think 2 things to say. Firstly await the above mentioned LS guidance however there will be a point, who knows when, where new entrants will have the chance to sign on the dotted line. Secondly if you want our assistance - franchise applications etc. then the sooner you get in the queue the better - do however anticipate some robust advice on the topic!

This news report from Criminal Solicitor Dot Net is of interest - not least that there might be some clear guidance on CDS Contract signature by close of play today.

The last sentence looks on face value to be portentous!

Check back in later and we will provide an update.

Marcel Berlins comments yesterday on "The hidden cost of cutting the Legal Aid bill" have elicited this response from veteran MP Austin Mitchell.

Neither seems entirely satisfactory to me. Join in the debate here or direct at the Guardian.

The joy of Sky plus makes, the otherwise dull, Monday night a festival of last weeks recorded comedy. Amongst the usual, "Earl", "Mitchell & Webb", last night was the first of a new series called "Comedy Showcase" - this starring Martin Freeman out of the Office.

It was OK however the programme lit up when the lead, locked up for assault, was visited in the cells by "International Rescue - er actually I'm not really International Rescue - I'm the Duty Solicitor".

His subsequent entrance into Court, to a tape recording of "Eye of the Tiger" was also a high point but I enjoyed this exchange best, not least because it is so Peer Review correct.

DS "Do you know what I say to all my clients?"

MF "What, 'you have the right of appeal' once they are convicted?"

I have just realised that my immersion in the next training course, and learning my new version of Powerpoint, has distracted me from posting here. That said there is not much going on today.

Couple of phone enquiries, some punters in search of training and one potential new start criminal practice. A day without a major policy announcement seems rather dull these days!

Lets see what tomorrow brings.

Many didn't, but I enjoyed the Style Council years and this seems somewhat appropriate this week:

Two important items.

Firstly some CLSA meeting dates for your diaries.

Next a very interesting letter from friend of this site Andrew Keogh.

The litigators fee has been published. You can download it here.

I will be training on the subject (and others) in November with TMT.

Not sure about the phrase "successful Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme" though!

Another weekend involving reading. Maybe I'll just walk the dogs and watch the rugby.

UPDATE

This is not a particularly helpful document there is not a clear explanation as to the practicalities and one has to refer back to the original Appendix 4.6 of Carter. There are no worked examples either. The one potentially useful item, the LGF Calculator is very misleading as to how certain fees are arrived at (although the final numbers do work out).

As promised revised standard letters are now available in the resources section of this site. (Scroll down to the bottom).

Use them wisely!

Steve is also now in the 'Boro with a damaged car (not his fault). He has been helping firms register Online and discovered this on the LSC Online site:

"We are also producing a tool that can be used in Microsoft Excel to aid the creation of bulk load files".

Keep up guys!

"Tipping the hat" is also customary in such circumstances.

The original (and best) JRS Wizard should also be available shortly.

Andy is in the 'Boro today finalising changes to our standard letters etc. necessitated by the October civil changes. They now require the skilled formatting hand of Sandra and then they have to go all the way to Scotland to be put into the resources link on the sidebar.

You should be able to download them shortly if you are desperate we might be able to handle e-mail requests from later on today!

Talking about things not going to happen in November got me thinking, indeed fortune telling.

I therefore predict........... Fireworks on the 5th of November- and I'm not talking about bonfire night.

The Legal Services Commission has just issued the following information:

"We received a large volume of applications and supporting materials in response to the VHCC Panel tender. Due to this it will no longer be possible to finalise the assessments of the applications before the end of November 2007.  We are therefore looking to inform applicants as to whether they have been successful in early December 2007. This is well in advance of the panel start date of 14 January 2008."

HAT TIP

Crimeline

With the most recent Peer Review appeal in first draft and sent to the clients for consideration a live result from another long standing client drops on my desk. The "Major Areas of Concern" section, around which the final gradation largely hangs, is of similar weight to that under appeal however this firm have got a, deserved, Threshold Competence (3) rating.

One appeal and two mainstream results in the last three days - the PR pace seems to be picking up again.

I have today renamed one of the trays, in the bank behind me, "Autorec Ongoing".

With the number of skirmishes growing daily it seems to make sense.

The issue in the last day or so relates to the oft discussed "7.5% balance of payments pull forward", issue. We have seen some interesting proposals and comments including a statement that there is (note not "will be") no pull forward in the unified contract, although it is not to be published and will not be introduced until July next year. This was in an example where the firm were within reporting profile and there was no contractual right to amend the SMP.

It is also the case that all these attempted reconciliations run to March 08 and not January 13th 08. It remains unclear how the "pull forward" issue will be resolved when we arrive at the day when it does disappear.

The "Autorecbot Antidote" spreadsheet has been getting a bit of hammer. You can have a copy if you like.

On the back of yesterdays Peer Review appeal success one of our oldest clients today report a Category 2 - Competence Plus score. See it's not all bad news and misery here!

Whilst writing a set of Peer Review representations we are informed of our second successful result. I will be sitting in a cloud of Smug for the rest of the day.

The firm in question also received someone else's result from the LSC.

We have had a few calls about Civil forms today so for the avoidance of doubt, if you have not had a Masterpack update yet, you can get all the new forms and new October 07 versions on the LSC website.

Here is a link to the new batch of Contracting Forms. Use these and go through all fee earners desks etc. to seek an destroy now obsolete versions.

That is all.

One of last weeks areas of friction, as you may well recollect, was with regard to the reporting of September 07 Civil Contract work. It was a late in the day document regarding transitional arrangements which sparked the concern. This stated, contrary to what we to then thought to be the case, that paper claims for civil work would not be accepted after October 1st.

We discussed this with the LSC believing the only rational interpretation of these arrangements was that as this was September reporting it fell under the previous contract and consequently paper submissions were acceptable. In effect we argued the new contract affects the reporting of contract work completed post October, a view supported by the guidance we quoted here on Friday. This view is further supported by the fact that post October 1st a new set of CMRF forms become operational all demanding information not previously required and which the current Online system could not process.

Today an amended version of the document which sparked the issue has been released which states:

"paper forms will still be accepted after October 2007"

(On Friday when I asked for a categoric answer to the question "will paper submissions post October 1st be accepted" I was of course told the opposite.)

How what seemed to us very simple transitional arrangements end up causing such confusion is beyond belief. No sorry it is not, it is par for the course.

UPDATE

The same position applies to the new CDS 6 as Online Marketing confirmed earlier:

"I can confirm that the new CDS6 format that includes the new scheme codes will be mandatory for October's submission that is submitted in November".