It is our last day in the office with our formal Christmas break starting at tea time today. Andy and I will still be available on the phones.

I remains for me to wish every one a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year and I will finish, as promised, with the best Xmas song ever (despite this weeks controversy).

I missed this supportive article earlier in the month. It doesn't tell us anything we don't know and neither is it likely to have any impact upon policy making, but every little counts.

I am wondering if I am in a parallel universe. The PR I am appealing is unbelievably poor, mistakes, misunderstandings and reviewing which is itself well "below competence". I have a firm facing a savage reduction in SMP not only on the back, one presumes, of entirely unreliable data at the LSC but also palpably in breach of contract rules. Finally a Crime CCA which is not a CCA in any meaningful sense - non-representative sample for a start.

Presumably they are hoping people are to full of Xmas spirit to respond.

Head stuck in a new Peer Review appeal. I have to say that just a couple of files in this does not feel like a Cat 4 "below competence" and frankly these are quite tidy files.

One of the more positive elements in the recent BVT consultation is a suggestion that they may reduce the required Peer Review threshold score to Category 3 rather than 2. Here's to that, especially if this sample has been properly graded.

Will put up the "greatest Christmas song of all time" next week but to get the seasonal spirit going here is this:

Having completed my initial reading of these new consultations/pronouncements I don't feel as if I have been given a clear vision of how things are moving forward.

The overall picture of "quality" presented, is one of warmed over remnants from recent years seemingly scraped together to try and present a coherent whole. It does not succeed. The impression created is of an organisation treading water.

BVT is not much better and suffers from being a "broad brush" framework document which tends towards banal generalities rather than the detail most practitioners are waiting for. Positively it seems to be suggesting a measured timetable with staggered implementation (though that is less positive for Manchester and Avon/Somerset who are first in the queue).

Most bizarrely however is the second of the three strategic options suggested by the Commission. 1 is the status quo and 3 is BVT. By way of of a clue 2 is the most ludicrous and impractical proposal for whole CDS change I have ever heard, even in jest. See if you can guess before clicking on the "continue reading" link below for the answer.

A full implementation of the Public Defenders Service!

Beggars belief does it not?

Mail just in from the LSC - Not yet clear if we will get a white Christmas we will however certainly get an Offline one!

I think we cleared up that the last weeks FAVFM announcement applies to civil and not Criminal firms. That said we have been made aware of a further CCA style sample requested of a CDS supplier. Haven't seen the detail yet however I make an advance prediction that it will be like the others recently experienced - a non-representative sample fishing for confirmation of suspicions generated by statistical monitoring.

Let you know on Tuesday.

Here are a couple of items which will be of interest.

As long predicted the Preferred Supplier Scheme is no more. We can honour its memory however as an "integrated" element of the continuing Legal Aid "reforms".

After a strange, new (and ultimately unsuccessful) "registration" process on their site I found a link elsewhere to the
BVT consultation which Nigel mentioned in yesterdays comments. I will be easing myself back into the world of work by having a bit of a read this PM.

Suffering from a (non-computer) virus so slow posting here - sorry because I realise that there is loads going on out there.

Hopefully back on track soon.

VHCC application issues seem to have just kicked off with two enquiries, relating to the disallowal of members from the defence team, received in the last hour. The deadline for a response is, ridiculously, Tuesday next week - after the months they have had these applications.

Applicants should check the post to see that such correspondence has not become hidden and have a close look on Monday.

Always happy to do a Friday Song request:

Less keen to do the dedication - but I'm sure he knows who he is!

P.S. its not our very own "Pudding Boy" or "DJ Lip Up" if your wondering.

Have you concerns about the conduct of cost appeals under the post October 2005 Rules and/or Immigration Contract Compliance audits? If so you might just want to give me a ring.

I spoofed the LSC's "snowed under with debt" press release.

I now understand that practitioners have received a Christmas tree shaped card from the LSC emblazoned with this slogan (Did you get one?). A might insensitive at this time of good will to all men perhaps.

We are, of course, not on their Christmas cards list.

Hat Tip

Nigel

We have joked about this acronym for ages and yes, to repeat the old joke, it is not a new commercial radio station fronted by Smashie and Nicey.

As recent training delegates will be aware we have spookily been using the phrase "robust contract management" to describe the now defunct Preferred Supplier Scheme. So here, as predicted, is an outline of the new regime.

This reads as being predominantly aimed at Civil firms however the above link is to the CDS side of the website and we have recently experienced file samples of this sort in the criminal scheme.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear it looks like a trip back in time to the CC war years - optimism rationing all round.

UPDATE

Mike in the comments noticed that the link had gone askew - because the post has been removed from the CDS News section of the site - might this represent some good news for Criminal practitioners?

Hat Tip

Andrew Keogh and Mike

SECOND UPDATE

Rodney Warren confirms that the posting of the FAVFM detail to the CDS News section was another error - this WILL NOT apply to Criminal Firms. Sorry no such cheer for Civil practices.

You can download a copy of the judgment in the LSC appeal of the Law Society & Dexter Montague JR here (scroll down to the bottom of the post).

The LSC press release probably picks out the main phrase:

'The power to amend (in this contract) is better characterised as a power to rewrite the contract.' [para 86 of the judgment]

This pretty much sums up their behaviour in recent times. This is a sentiment with which most people I speak to would concur and one which the conduct of recent consultations would confirm. The practical impact of this on forthcoming developments is unclear and perhaps Des Hutton is over optimistic that an "urgent re-think" is likely - the early indications of the LSC are not positive.

So once again a period of limbo.

At the same time we experience a developing trend which we have christened "make it up as we go alongery". Fee sharing of PACE standard fees being the best example in the last week.

UPDATE

The LS presses ahead following their JR success.

As promised to yesterdays delegates here is confirmation of our interpretation of Table 9 of the Graduated Fee schedules. For those out of the loop this is the table which indicates how much of the fee is payable based on the nature of the case - the example which raised the concern was the 25% figure identified for "retrials". (How much sadder can a single life become?)

My interpretation, that you will be PAID 25% of the fee as calculated and NOT that the fee will be REDUCED by 25%, is correct. You can see confirmation of this from worked example 5 in Annex G of this June's initial consultation.

I am reliably informed that the final regulations regarding the LGFS are to be laid later this month.

First chance to get on the Law Society site and read the judgement from last week - and the site is down. Maybe tomorrow.

Thinking about the LSC response put me in mind of this:

Early drive to an in-house training day so no time to post.

More tomorrow - only up the road in Newcastle then.