A day of frustration here with our fantastic broadband providers e-mail server down. Nothing in, nothing out. Brilliant the day after we did an e-mail shot!
Over the phone lines however we are starting to get some feedback on the LSC's CDS BVT consultation sessions. It is not positive.
Tell you own tale in the comments box.
Oh and a CLAC in Wakefield anyone?
One autorecbot sighting does not a summer make - as the old saying goes. It does however suggest that the LSC are keen to manage overpayed contracts to within an inch of the SMP Reconciliation Protocol (back to level, or 107.5% in Crime, within 6 months). Do have a chat to us before entering into "negotiations".
Every Friday from 15th May onwards we intend to offer a weekly "Webinar" service. This will be a lunchtime (1 - 2pm) CPD presentation, over the internet, attracting a CPD point for each person viewing.
The benefits are obvious; the potential for highly cost effective training, from (we hope) a respected supplier, without the need for travel and undertaken from the comfort of your own offices. Over the course of the year there will be the usual JRS Legal Aid related topics, some category specific legal updates and sufficient management content to help meet Solicitors Code of Conduct Rule 5 management training requirements. Over the year we will also have a range of guest tutors.
We do not believe that this will replace our regular training courses however it will provide an additional and flexible way of gaining your requisite hours.
What is a Webinar?
In essence the "webinar" involves the live delivery of a powerpoint presentation but without video of the speaker. (I have been a little hurt by those who have suggested that this is a positive enhancement). A "phone-in" style question and answer session will follow. This means that it is an interactive course and not distance learning, therefore no in-house preparation is required an neither are there multiple choice tests on conclusion.
All you need is an internet connected PC and a speaker phone. On the day you log on at our hosts site, with an e-mail supplied code and ring a similarly supplied phone number (phone charges are included in the course fee). Course notes are supplied by e-mail also. The more you have sitting around your desk the cheaper the CPD point becomes.
The first topic will be
"A Practitioners Guide to CDS Best Value Tendering"
Followed by (based on popular demand for face-to-face courses):
May 22nd Family Costs Masterclass
May 29th CDS Investigations Class, Costs Masterclass
June 5th CDS Proceedings Class, Costs Masterclass
A further schedule to follow.
The cost is £60 per session or £150 for all 4 and places can be booked via e-mail, fax or over the phone. (Our current software license limits the number of sites we can communicate with so early booking is advisable).
We are also amenable to "on demand" delivery should there be a topic or a date you would prefer.
Obviously give us a ring if you would like further information.
Back in the office with an appeal to compete, some Peer Review stuff to do and an urgent auto reconciliation to have a look at. Having been out for most of last week there are also a pile of e-mails and messages. It is also a quite an interesting and Legal Aidy LS Gazette.
The front page article on Solicitor Advocates and litigators fees (the Judge apparently suggested that costs issues led the firm to do it's own advocacy) is another of the potential "perverse" outcomes of standard fee schemes. It is an issue which will undoubtedly run and run.
There is also this clarification on social welfare law consortia which I cannot find in the paper copy.
It was the comment piece about the 60th Anniversary of Legal Aid which caught my eye. The main reason for this is that it references this new book from the Legal Action Group. It is co-authored by Jon Robins who was editor at Independent Lawyer when I did a redux of this place as a column - so I thought I owed him a plug.
The Birmingham BVT training event went well last night with a fair amount of cash being raised for Birmingham Law Society's annual charity. Audience reaction to the proposals was as expected - "not enthusiastic". If you are interested in doing this course check in here on Monday where we will have some exciting news.
There are a number of things wrong with this weeks choice - the lack of a proper video for starters. More importantly this is the last of 17 interwoven songs from what, in the 70s, we would have called a "concept album". (Indeed this is the 4th version of the title track on the CD). My guess is that the lack of individual videos follows on from that and there is a strong case that you should not listen to a single track out of the context of the whole. Nonetheless I am playing and enjoying, this so much I simply can no longer resist making it Friday song.
Having trouble with prior authorities for translation disbursements? Strangely we have come across an identical situation, at either end of the country, regarding written translation of prosecution documents. The LSC want to/did allow a rate significantly below the market rate, and against CBAM guidance.
If this is affecting you give us a ring.
Things are particularly busy in JRS world hence the 2-day gap in posting here. It has been a mix of CCA appeals (old and new), some Duty Regulations stuff, another upsurge in Peer Review issues and even some SQM issues. Top that off with visits to cleints to discuss CLS procurement, CDS BVT and preparing for what is looking like being a fairly sizeable event in Birmingham and I've got a little nudged out of the daily routines.
Will try harder.
Listened to XTC's greatest hits last Friday (which is a surprisingly full album). This is not on it but is about my favourite track of theirs. Bit of nostalgia, "goin' back in time" etc. which does leave one feeling a little old!
I mentioned below my at Birmingham next week. Here is the official flyer and here is a booking form.
See some of you there and I am up for a beer afterwards.
This is a first a blog direct from a train (though the WiFi is a bit slow)
Andy and I met last night to discuss, amongst other things the CDS BVT stuff. He, by way of preparation, went through the video presentation on this page. It is apparently a must see.
I did my first CPD briefing on the proposals last week (with one in Birmingham shortly) and we intend to present this on the web on May 8th. Whilst writing it I made the conscious decision NOT to try and explain the "declining clock auction" in any great detail. Andy's view is that this part of their presentation will be sufficient to help you "take a view" for consultation purposes. If it becomes the chosen option we will have to find a more effective way of dealing with it at a later stage.
More to follow soon on the Birmingham and May 8th events, in the meantime give Jayne a ring for further details.
Richard Miller, for the Law Society, gets the BVT roll out just about right.
I'd go a bit further, then I don't have to be diplomatic about it.
Existing Duty Solicitors do not need reapply.
Survivors of the November 07 on-line billing crash will remember it well. We are slowly moving back to a situation where all contract billing is on-line with a bigger bolder electronic business future ahead of us. To date the (sensibly) phased reintroduction has been without similar calamity. We have picked up gripes here and there but no real catastrophes.
In the last week however some tensions have begun to emerge most noticeably when anticipated SMPs are not received and the LSC's response is "you have not made a submission". This happened to a client today when apparently their civil report had not been made with the resultant non payment of both CDS and CLS payments. On investigation it transpired that both had in fact been made and received by the Commission. As anyone with experience of managing cash-flow this is far from a trivial mistake.
More unusually we have heard from a firm whose entire claim has been rejected for containing some "out of time claims", i.e. over 3-months old. Now I have fought and won a number of battles in this regard over the years, especially in the last round of CCA wars. As I see it the contractual discretion to reduce, and not reject, claims should come only after the identification of this as a routine occurrence (more than 5% of claims) and following a discussion with the firms Account Manager. Not by LSC online billing and not with a concurrent rejection of "in time" claims. One assumes that someone has told them to do this and that they are not now the Commissions interpreters of contract. We will, no doubt, see.
As ever your own tales are welcomed in the comments facility.
The drip, drip of CCA appeals has not become a fully running tap yet, however the drops are becoming more frequent. Inconsistency of approach between Regional Offices (and on one occasion between audits in the same office) is once again becoming an area of concern. If you are writing your own reps on an A2, or worse, do give us a ring.
Is this story about the LSC, civil litigation, conditional fees and after the even insurance and the Corby birth defects case. It chimes with some conversations I have had recently.
Worth a read.
Fridays form was the wrong one apparently (was a draft sent by the LSC in error) here is the correct version.
Focus 59 is out now too, includes a "recession special feature".
A new form for TFF claims which is mandatory from April (yes I know it is already April). It came in a pile of others which are mandatory from June - keep an eye out for on-line Masterpack updates.
No not another dollar but another consultation. This one asks you to consider some "cost neutral" amendments to the Public Law Graduated Fee scheme. (It has graphs too).
That they state, on a sample of 227 claims, they paid out over double the actual profit costs recorded is however very interesting.
We are spinning more plates regarding LSC consultations than for some time. The phone is quite lively on the CDS BVT stuff but we are also receiving plenty of traffic regarding the indicative figures for firms under the new family fee schemes. If you have not had one yet (and the North West seems a bit behind the times) these provide, amongst other things, a summary as to your projected income based on historic performance.
As I commented in the linked post above - we have yet to see one where the firm is worse off, and we have see a good few now. If you are one of the unlucky losers do let us know.