A regular Disclosure phone conversationalist will today interview a young man seeking a training contract. Accidentally he mailed an e-mail to his girlfriend from this weekend by mistake. This contained, no nothing smutty, his speculation that this would a walk in the park and that the position was virtually ensured.

I would like to be there when he is confronted with this e-mail at the start of the formalities.

Watch that "send all" button.

Ash are amongst my most favourite (live) acts. They have just announced that they will be headlining Middlesbrough Music Live on 1st June.

Is there a better film title track than "A Life Less Ordinary"?

Nah.

Not another number puzzle related post but a further reminder that CDS UCC applications must be in by 4pm this time next week. I have today discovered this document detailing "common errors" in applications. This includes an indication that failure to provide the date of your CLAS certificate "may" invalidate your CDS 12A. You are directed to answers 38 and 39 of this document. This states;

39. I don't know what date my CLAS certificate was issued? How can I find out?

You can find out the date your CLAS certificate was issued by telephoning the Solicitors' Regulation Authority on 0870 606 25 55 (choose option 2 from the automated answer machine) and providing your Law Scoiety Roll Number. Alternatively you can email info.services@SRA.org.uk

We may well be overreacting here but just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. Be careful out there.

UPDATE

Just got this through following an earlier call to Mr Warren:

"I am at CLSA with Rodney who says he has spoken to Tim Collieu and putting “passported” should not lead to rejection but that the firm will be telephoned for the date. Putting “passported 01/04/01” is definitely OK".

Haven't we been going over this sort of stuff for years? Wasn't the (not inexpensive) Preferred Supplier Project supposed to have identified all sort of issues like this? We even had Kaizen to answer some of these questions.

So now some more workshops to cover the same ground fantastic. Perhaps this Japanese activity might help.

Out shouting at North East firms yesterday (someone even asked for a longer course on the feedback forms) and as promised here are three essential links;

First the the Litigators Fee Guidance Document

Next the Table of Offence Classification (Schedule 1 part 6) from the CDS Funding Order.

And finally the most recent PACE Standard Fee Q & A (V. 3).

There has been a long running discussion, particularly in our neck of the woods, about how to claim for post charge work on arrest on breach of warrant. The guidance is pretty clear; by way of a supplementary INVH claim charged at hourly rates on the original UFN.

There has however been a train of thought that when the police interview, with the possibility of a separate charge, this properly constitutes a new standard fee. Sorry not so, as just confirmed by friend of this site Mr R Warren.

The above advice refers.

Spent some time on the phone regarding CDS UCC applications again this morning. I guess this is going to be feature of the next few days.

I intend to do a daily countdown here so as to avoid any mistakes this time round.

You have 8 Days, and counting

We have 2, Category 2 Peer Review results, at the same firm to report this morning.

I thought about trying to express this as a mathematical equation and got as far as;

2 X 2(PR) = Y*

*where Y represents a mixture of elation coupled with relief.

Well done!

I have just checked my first completed CDS UCC application which reminds me that the signature "pre" deadline expires today. If you want to benefit from the LSC checking and acknowledging you application today is the day.

Don't forget the final date is 2nd May.

I have previously mentioned a couple of the main elements of the Deed of Settlement between TLS and the LSC. This has involved a couple of immediate cases where the precise application of the deed can be tested.

Today another has come along, again to do with CCA audits, so even more reason to watch this space for.

Off to London (holiday). Portishead's new album - out now!

Sat in on a demonstration of what looks a very interesting software product yesterday. This was out of office, with an early start for me, hence the lack of a post here.

It is a database which allows for the electronic manipulation and presentation of evidence. It has most potential application in complex and VHCC Crown Court cases. What is more the suggested funding of this, at 4.10 of CBAM, is via case by case disbursement rather than in outright purchase by firms.

If this sounds interesting to you give Simon a ring.

I know we can't help ourselves where "LSC Off-line" is concerned, particularly as the proposed "Transformation" process looks towards a much more significant expansion of "off-line working". That said I have it on good authority that the new DSCC site is a good and useful resource. It provides apparently a wealth of statistical information about your referral profile etc. - we cannot access it not being a CDS supplier.

Praise where praise is due.

By request we re post a link to the 14th January, Litigators Fee guidance. As cases begin to fall for billing under the new scheme our phone casework is increasing hence the need for continuing training on the subject - such as these 2 courses over the next fortnight.

Today's first phone call involved the definitions of "Case Type Scenarios" which are clarified at Appendix B of the CCLF Guidance document.

Deliver Transformation S. 3.7

"Under these proposals, if the position arose that we (the LSC) were unable to receive electronic submissions, we would ensure that we had contingency arrangement in place"

I am having a bit of a "phone enquiry about billing matters" morning so far. It demonstrates, if nothing else, that you can't switch off even though all you are going to get is a standard fee. Perhaps most interesting has been a caller who has completed their first EC Claim 1 on a CDS exceptional case and decided that the time involved in this makes it utterly uneconomic for the two figure benefit it will return. The file will also be subject to assessment which is likewise a disincentive. So on top of the two standard fee hole in exceptional claims comes a commercial consideration - how much over the escape threshold do you have to be to make the time involved in billing it economically valuable?

I had intended to post a Portishead track given the imminence of their new album and a 5 star review of this weeks Manchester gig. However I have received a request for something by Bruce (not Forsyth) so here is a frankly rather predicable choice from my somewhat limited knowledge of the man and his work;

I do however know a little more about the head-banded guitarist featured in the video former "Grin" front man Nils Lofgren. So its a double header today;

He used to perform with a trampoline on stage and do somersaults and stuff.

Not surprisingly the Gazette leads with the settlement of the Law Society's legal action against the unified contract. As indicated yesterday we have begun testing some of the promised benefits and earnestly hope that it is as good as is seems on paper.

Equally unsurprisingly there comes with the good news a less optimistic take on the criminal contract especially with regard to recruitment into the Duty Scheme and an indication that some major suppliers will not be applying for the new contract. Chats with depressed CDS suppliers is a part of our daily experience.

The full article is worth a read.

In need of something to read? Try these:

1 Delivery Transformation Consultation

2 Route Map for Civil Legal Aid

The former is about saving administrative costs and electronic working (yes I know) the latter about the further move into graduated fees. The good news is that Civil BVT looks to have been kicked into the long grass.

More detail later.

In the last few days I have had occasion to test out 2 sections of the settlement deed between our robotic overlords and the LSC.

The first involves section 8 and UPOA. I have previously expressed my concern that this is drawn a little too tightly to help certain firms. We shall see and I will keep you updated as to results.

Today I have had a bash at section 7.1 and recoupments resultant from CCAs. I read this to say that these will be limited to the actual value of any alleged overpayment on the files in question and not by way of a general finding. Still might not want a negative categorisation I suppose. I will keep you in the loop on this one too.

The (LSC Online eligibility) calculator is working as usual.

However the information entered whilst using the calculator is not pre populating the CW1 or CW2 forms as it would normally do.

We are working on this and it will be rectified as soon as possible.

It was released just 2-days ago. This is not comforting is it?

As promised we have brought the "monitoring" sheet of the CMRF Wizard up to date. We have not been able to create a "profitability calculator" of the type possible on the CDS 6 version (yet) but this will allow you to do all that is necessary to report in the current "off-line" situation. As ever a comprehensive analysis of your civil contract performance is possible for users. It remains free and will be sent on request.

In other software news we have been approached to possibly provide some training to assist firms (especially those with complex evidence in Crown Court matters) with "electronic presentation of evidence" (EPE). This looks like a very interesting development to me and anybody with an interest should give me a ring. Should have more detail next week.

Seemingly only two QCs on the VHCC advocates panel list.

HAT TIP

Tim Collins
No. 6

LSC tip wins the National.

The current 6-month CDS contract is to be replaced with an 18 month "unified" version in July. The application process begins today with a deadline of 16.00, Friday 2nd May. If you apply before 21st April the LSC will undertake a "completeness" check for you.

Applications are open to all including new firms and there is again an opportunity to expand into new schemes. The details of the scheme and application forms are available here.

If you require any further assistance give Simon a ring.

SB asks in the comments on the post below;

"Can we have Supergrass - Caught by the Fuzz then?"

Yes!

We now know why Heathrow has the highest Police Station standard fee in the country.

*vulnerable client (almost certainly) alleging serious misconduct by the police.

The full Deed of Settlement between the Law Society and the LSC referred to below is now available.

One of the major elements, from a current JRS casework point of view, is the "amnesty" with regard to UPOA. This is contained at section 8 from which 8.1.4 seems to me to be the killer as I guess most firms engaged in the UPOA exercise will have recieved a "debit to a BACS statement" and fall outside the amnesty.

Your thoughts greatfully received.

The change to the CW1 declaration mentioned in this post relates to the penultimate paragraph 11.1.1 in this guidance document. Are we alone in not having seen any advance notice of this? Was there any?

Read the whole thing, however there seem to be two clear elements; the clients reporting responsibilities on change of circumstances and the firm's with regard to reassessment.

The former places the client under a duty to report any improvement in means since the original assessment these may include "new employment or a lottery win"!

You, acting as the assessing authority, are unlikely to think that a reassessment is appropriate unless:

"the client's means have improved dramatically (e.g. inheritance or lottery win) or the matter is likely to run for some time, say three months or more, after a significant change in circumstances".

Quite why any of this is necessary in an age of standard fees, initial attendance triggers payment, and the limited impact of the statutory charge on controlled work, is beyond me. Unless of course you know better.

I did a training session for Manchester Law Society last night. My final slide (of 40) gave an indication of the main areas we are focussing upon with our retained clients. One of these was Peer Review, on which I commented briefly primarily to observe the proposed time scale for Best Value Tendering might make this a more imminent possibility for delegate firms than previously.

I had a chat about this with one delegate after the session which we continued on the phone this morning. Now I am always cautious when on the verge of receiving new instructions subsequent to training events in case what was genuinely intended as course content is misconceived as scare-mongering marketing on my part. We consequently had a longer than necessary conversation so I could better explain the PR process, all the possible permutations and to try and evaluate the real potentiality for an early request for files.

Part way through this conversation a colleague presented him with a letter received this very morning containing, yes you have guessed it already, a request for 20 files for Peer Review. Very, very scary indeed.

The clear moral of this tale: don't talk to, or associate with your truly unless you are prepared to live in the belly of a whale.

There is too much stuff happening today individually to blog about, so here is a pick-and-mix list from which you can link for further detail. We will fill out some of these stories when we have had time to digest them more fully.

Bong

An Agreement on the Unified Contract has been reached (see bullet points by scrolling down half a page)

Bong

The VHCC panel is launched.

Bong

There are some new Civil and CDS forms coming your way - including an interesting amendment to the clients CW1 declaration introducing a requirement to report changes in financial circumstances (we are making enquiries as to what this is all about).

Bong

And finally fire fighters today saved a lovely fluffy kitten from a car using thermal imaging technology.

I spent yesterday afternoon working on the CDS 6 Wizard. For those who have not utilised this FREE tool before it is designed to assist with monthly reporting either Online (whenever), bulk upload or on paper.

Yesterdays task initially involved creating a 2008 - 2009 contract monitoring sheet. We were then forced to confront the myriad of problems created, in this and other regards, by the new PACE scheme. These mainly arise because you are required to report the notional and not the actual costs, i.e. the relevant standard fee, on the CDS 6. This made monthly reconciliation impossible on the old version.

We also wanted to build in an additional "profitability analysis" function to the data sheet. We have done this both for PACE claims and Lower Standard Fees in the Magistrates Court. For all users the former will be new and will deal with the problem mentioned above concerning monthly reconciliation. For some the LSF element will also represent a novel, if entirely voluntary addition.

There is one further minor complication the LSF element is, needs be, different for firms in Carter Designated Areas and those who are not. There are consequently different versions for those two categories of firms.

These are now available from the Middlesbrough office on request.

I intend to do something similar to the CMRF Wizard tomorrow.

Long time readers will be aware that there have been a number of "last Cost Committee of all time" false starts.

I do now think I have genuinely had my last one ever which, in cost terms, proved a 90% success. This was a significantly better result than anticipated (I think I am too often, too pessimistic) and a testimony to the common sense of most panel members. I think I won my last ever enhancement argument too which helps deal with the bad taste left by the previous, and now penultimate, case.

I was very surprised, but cheered, to hear that the LSC have finally conceded the point on the recent Law Society JR decision and decided that all recently introduced standard fee schemes are unlawful. This affects the Civil scheme, Family Help and Public Law Graduated Fees, and in the CDS the new PACE scheme and the Crown Court LF.

From today we return to payment by hourly rates. More details below.

April Fool!