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.

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

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 October changes to the CDS contract, PACE fixed fees, VHCC Panel etc. are being put back by a fortnight to October 15th.

Is this the first or the final slippage to the timetable?

As you can seen below the last couple of days we have returned to the subject of the VHCC auction process.

I was greatly amused by this gem in a letter from John Williams (Bankside Law) in today's Gazette, regarding one of the answers in the Q & A document -

"The rather unexpected answer is worthy of the bartering scene in the 'Life of Brian'..."

Unfortunately I cannot find a Youtube clip to post.

The likely LSC response - "Cwucifixion"

UPDATE

I have just noticed that this post, by chance, is number, yes you've guessed it......666. Spooky!

When is a 12 Noon VHCC application deadline not a 12 Noon deadline?

Obviously when, retrospectively, it is a 5.30pm deadline.

Why did that happen then? And which item from the title is which?

PS If you delivered between these two times, have a signed chit and left your "late" application with the LSC you have a get out of jail free card.

Returning like a bad penny (or smell if you prefer) further VHCC news in the form of a limited extension to the deadline. Unsurprisingly it is in very limited circumstances and primarily with regard to Counsel, failure to sign declaration etc.

If you do wish to revisit your application either to add an omitted advocate or one who you left out through a misunderstanding of the qualifying cases criteria. The detail can be found here.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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".

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.

A hurriedly arranged trip to film another episode of "VHCC in the Attic" today. The opportunity arose after a planned bout of PR training was cancelled following the defection of yet another of the next generation of CDS advocates to the public sector. Carters certainty that his market based reforms would convince these young lawyers that there is future in the Legal Aid sector seems, unsurprisingly, misplaced.

So a 2 hour drive to an anonymous hotel lounge to meet two firms seeking advice on preparing their bid - hope this doesn't constitute the formation of a cartel!

Whilst most people will be pleased by Fridays indication that the merger of duty schemes into larger Carter entities will not now go ahead there will probably be equal numbers confused as to why the LSC have again changed tack so dramatically. Now I appreciate that this presents a "dammed if you do dammed if you don't" quandary for them and that it is nice to know that they have taken their "I'm not listening ears off" (seemingly), but why punt such detailed proposals only to do a U-turn?

So firms will not have to do journeys like this or resort to Star Wars "matter transfer" technology after all.

The CLSA have gazumped us all, including the LSC, in getting the latest set of consultation documents and responses on the web. You can get them here, they include PACE boundaries and Slot Allocation.

This is truly my last post of the day - happy weekend reading!

UPDATE

So I lied. The above, and more - including various "final fixed fee" civil schemes - are now on the LSC web-site. I appreciate that this will significantly spoil your weekends.

On crime it does appear that Police Station fixed fees will go ahead in October but there will not be, for now at least, minimum contract volumes or any boundary mergers.

Is there anything politically important happening next week to occasion this veritable flood of communication?

Finally can't resist opening a caption competition for this photo from the front of one of the above!

The Gazette gives front page prominance to next weeks "Week of Action". It is being organised by the Access to Justice Alliance.

I like to think I am a reasonably fair minded person. So given the various posts here in recent weeks accusing the LSC of willfully disregarding exert evidence demonstrating the impracticality of their Carter implementation proposals, I thought it right to put the record straight. (We have referred to this as "I'm not listening ears"). It is now for you to judge whether this accusation is an accurate representation of the Commissions position:

The Legal Services Commission has issued the following statement following today's publication of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee's report on legal aid reform.

LSC Chief Executive Carolyn Regan said:

"We are continuing to work towards implementation of various elements of the legal aid reform programme in October as planned. This will ensure that providers have information about the schemes as early as possible. However, we recognise that Ministers will need to consider and respond to the Select Committee's report during the coming weeks."

The LSC will continue to not listen as further calls for breaks on the process, and even that there is the need for an immediate 5-7% increase required to float the proposed changes, are made. Read the summary of the LECG under the blue "independent economic analysis" link at the least.

Thanks to the vigilance of LAPG here is another interesting development. Once again fingers in ears and La La La La La. Have they stopped yet?

LAPG WELCOMES SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
 
The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today warmly welcomed the Constitutional Affairs Committee report into the Government's legal aid changes. The report calls on the Government to halt its programme until there is an evidence base to justify it, to scrap the move to fixed fees, and to pilot any changes before rolling them out across the whole country.
 
Director Richard Miller said, "The Committee’s analysis of the LSC/DCA approach is damning. The proposals are ‘reckless’. They will ‘disadvantage already vulnerable clients’. There is ‘a major risk that specialist providers will be lost to the Legal Aid system’. The LSC relies on academic economic theory ‘in the teeth of LSC-commissioned evidence which casts doubt on the capacity of supplier[s] to respond’. These criticisms, which echo our own concerns, are now coming from an all-party Parliamentary committee with the benefit of evidence from all relevant stakeholders and extensive independent advice.”
 
He continued, “Clients with mental health issues, with disabilities, or who are fleeing domestic violence will find it much more difficult to get help under the crude fixed fee schemes proposed. Firms that specialise in helping such clients will no longer be able to do so when the fees they are paid are based on averages for all clients. We are relieved that the Committee has recognised that any fee scheme needs to reflect more closely the work required in each case, and has called for the introduction of the LSC’s schemes to be halted. We sincerely hope that for the sake of our clients, the Government will listen.”
 
LAPG has already identified some of the damage done to the legal aid supplier base by the anticipation of these new schemes. Over 200 firms decided not to continue doing any legal aid work after April 2007, and many of those who signed the new contracts have dropped some areas of law, and/or are in the process of winding up their legal aid practices altogether. One of the losses was the last major social welfare law provider in central and west Berkshire. The final firm in East Yorkshire offering social welfare law services has now pulled out. There is an area of South-East London served by only two firms of solicitors offering housing advice. Among other London housing advisers lost were Powell Forster, Everett & Co, J C Gorringe, Belshaw Curtin and Daniel & Harris. A large firm in Kings Lynn that has signed the contract is winding up its practice and not taking on any new clients, leaving a town of 35,000 people without its only mental health practitioner, and with significantly reduced availability of family law advice.
 
LAPG chair Roy Morgan said, “The damage that has already been done to the supply of legal aid services has restricted the ability of people to get the advice they need on the problems affecting their day to day lives. We hope the LSC and the DCA will heed the Committee’s strong urging that they reconsider the path they are going down before far worse damage is done.”

The CLSA's views are here.

Here it is, comments required by 18th May.

The Gazette reports on the latest body of Lawyers litigating against the Commission. This time it is the Society of Asian Lawyers and the Black Solicitors Network. Carters proposals will definitely, in our view, disproportionately impact on smaller firms and given that ethnic minority firms are over-represented amongst such firms their point seems well made.

At the front of the line there does seem to be at lest a minor success over the Duty Scheme consultation. This will have the benefit of giving the LSC arm ache as they will have to put their finger in their ears and sing loudly for slightly longer.

Todays job, some way down the road from Middlesbrough, seems likely to become an increasingly frequent part of our work - detailed pre-Carter planning with a client firm. The firm is question is one who initially saw the proposals as potentially beneficial and might even be described as a Carter target firm. It is beginning to look as though that transition may not be as seamless as first hoped however. On the other hand they at least have the flexibility to undertake such an exercise whereas many other smaller outfits have significantly less room for manoeuvre.

So shave, suit on, leave the Peer Review files for tomorrow and back in the car - remembering of course to drive on the left side of the road.

In recent years I have spoken on a number of occasions at the same events as Stephen Hewitt of Fisher Meredith - usually regarding Preferred Supplier. The following letter, to the LSC, was reproduced in an excellent article in the most recent issue of Independent Lawyer (worth a subscription if you do not already have one). With his kind permission we reproduce it here:

LSC Unified Contract

We at Fisher Meredith, together with other firms across the country, took a stand on Friday against being bullied into signing this inequitable and destructive contract.

Our staff were unanimous in their opposition to what you seek to impose on us and the lawyers instructed by our professional body could not advise any firm to sign. That contract, together with the fees and rates proposed, will spell the end of legal aid for all good suppliers. It is a disgrace.

Through its action, and those of the DCA and Lord Chancellor, you have poisoned the relationship with all those firms across the country who have tried their hardest and applied their experience and expertise for many years to provide access to justice for the socially disadvantaged – and you have made it impossible for the scheme itself to continue in the long term. The Commission and the politicians responsible should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves today and henceforth.

Our staff are naturally terribly worried about their own commitments. They want to get on with their service to their clients. How long we shall be able to do this is of course in doubt because of your approach to legal aid in the future. We are therefore reluctantly having to sign. We do so under protest and without prejudice to our contention that it is unacceptable as a way forward and that several clauses are unlawful; also under protest as to the appalling rates of pay you propose which will make it non viable in the longer term.

We were your first preferred supplier and you have treated us appallingly.

Yours in anger and disappointment.

Eileen Pembridge and Stephen Hewitt

It seems to capture the mood and atmosphere very well. That a such vocal advocate of the Preferred Supplier Scheme, designed to deliver "excellent partnership working", now corresponds in such terms is, I think, the most damming indictment of the current situation imaginable.

We obviously offer the LSC the right of reply on these pages.

I have kept up with news, especially the duty rota saga, via the BillBerry. That this will now be subject to litigation was equally as predictable as that they would get it wrong in the first place.

As I left the UK a fortnight ago the correspondence under consideration was discussed here. Subsequent to that were the somewhat triumphalist press releases following the 94% sign-up to the new civil contract. Derek Hill's notification of the delay in implementation of the new rotas is, perhaps not surprisingly, less bullish. Given that they have seemingly abandoned their preferred option (number 1) due to its impracticality in "these types of methodologies" and have reverted to Option 2 (snapshot of number of Duty Solicitors as of November 2006), this is hardly surprising too. He also deploys the "working together" theme utilised in this style of conciliatory correspondence. Having just returned from the USA and remembering the Westerns of my youth the title of this post obviously picked itself.

UPDATE

Here is Bindmans pre-action letter which Nigel mentions in the comments.

Though technically now on holiday I have been unable to avoid checking the outcome of yesterdays Unified Contract deadline. According to the LSC it appears that most have signed, though once again the tone of their comments are unlikely to make new friends.

In addition, and it interesting how to judge this, there is now a new, extended deadline. Do they have 85% as they claim or is this a gesture to those who withheld signature? We will probably have to wait for the dust to settle.

We understand that yesterday's Law Society Council unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in the LSC over its conduct of contract negotiations.

As you know, we are not ones who understand the nuances of such diplomacy. This however seems pretty much as close to the type of language we would use in the circumstances, but without using it.

More when we get it.

UPDATE

Here is a letter in the Times.

MORE NEWS

The LS are considering a last minute injunction. It is a bit sketchy but you might want to consider this final gambit in this Mexican stand-off.

The above is a "self updating link" to the LS website and if you go there now, 4pm, you will see both a decision not to seek an injunction and also confirmation of the vote of no confidence. I will be watching all of this with interest via the BlueBerry from across the pond next week.

We commented upon LSC Chief Executive Carloyn Regan's letter on the unified contract yesterday.

Her opposite number at the Law Society, Des Hudson, has the following to say in response:

"Your letter is also a plain distortion of the Law Society's position on the unified legal aid contract. The Society has sought throughout to alert practitioners and other interested parties to the inequity of the contract on offer. It has been forced into this position by the LSC's intransigence with regard to amendments and its apparent indifference to the welfare of legal aid suppliers."

Hat Tip - AnonMike

I was engaged in my last CCA Cost Committee hearing EVER yesterday so was somewhat out of the loop with the flurry of activity concerning this week Unified Contract deadline (and we do like to keep you up to date!). More of that experience later.

I guess therefore that you have all received this correspondence. Time will tell if this is political naiveté, blind panic, crass stupidity or a mixture of all three but I am staggered at both it's tone and content.

I have the inclination, but not the time - a Manchester audience waits, to write a line-by-line commentary so just a couple of quick points.

I have some sympathy with the proposition put that the new contact is not much worse than the current one, the point being that the current one is not that good either. What they are missing however is the political context and that signature is effectively consent to a wider range of proposals on which "consultation" is little more than a sham. This is a fault line in the Carter "roll out" which, seemingly many of the profession have spotted and responded to.

On top of this to try and spin events to paint the Law Society as the irresponsible party I can, with a degree of impartiality, only describe as nonsense. A short chat with our delegates today, to sample the mood, would quickly put that view right. Is nobody accurately advising LSC Senior Management about this and do they genuinely believe there is a substantial section of the supply base is really content?

Finally, and because I have written more than I intended, I am sure that the Autorecbots - sorry Account/Relationship managers are delighted to be placed in the front line on this one.

And remember this from the person who brought you "we are all in this together".

The backdrop to yesterday’s training course turned out to be a meeting the evening before, at which North East firms had been discussing the Unified Contract. It seems that many firms were actively considering not signing. Other contacts tell me that this is by no means a local phenomenon.

Another client reports that an Account Manager let slip that only a small percentage of signed contracts had been returned by the end of last week. Opposition seems to be mounting.

Just after putting up the Cure below two back-to-back phone calls dragged me back into the unremitting gloom of present times. The first was from a firm who's fund take in the proposed expanded duty scheme borders will be tantalisingly below the £50k threshold (they do provide a significant element of supply in the existing scheme). I think I talked the caller back from the edge, if nothing else by exploring the value their current Duty allocation might hold for another larger supplier. That said another small town will probably lose another experienced practitioner.

More depressing however is a member of the exclusive “I would instruct” club, and a client of over 10 years, who will shortly leave the ranks of the Duty Solicitor scheme. His assistant has gone, to the security of a larger firm, and his continued subsidisation of the CDS will no longer have even its current, limited viability. His growing civil practice, at private client rates and with only a tiny amount of regulatory headache, waits.

How did the National Training Day go?

If you were there let us know.

There is not much coverage I can quickly find about yesterdays protest at Parliament. I did however hear Julian Hayes on the radio yesterday.

There are these two letters in the Guardian though - one supportive one, stupidly, not. If you know of any better links or were there let us know.

In final preparation for the forthcoming training courses I have had a further read of this, in particular the section mentioned in the headline. I had intended to post on this earlier but didn't get round to it.

I am put in mind of a conversation following Law London last year. The delegate in question has a somewhat colourful name for his Account Manager - of which the AM is aware. I guess that this is now prohibited probably under clause 3 -

Neither party will tolerate impolite or rude communication by any of their personnel. Shouting, oppressive or threatening behaviour is expressly prohibited.

This is of course also one of the reasons Andy and Steve do most of the audit "baby-sitting" for this firm despite not having to sign up to it.

Is the use of the name "Autorecbot" "impolite, rude, oppressive or threatening"?

Whilst at Law London earlier in the week, news of the first new post Carter Duty rotas began seeping through. I heard of firms both happy and disgruntled with their percentage allocations.

Last night at 19.52 (just to prove that we are not on flexi time here!) I spoke to a client with an interesting situation. He had been told of his allocation, at the West Yorkshire meeting by a "man with a computer at the back of the room" and was not too dissatisfied. On further thought he began to question the raw number of claims on which his percentage had been worked - surely, his thinking ran, we did more than this over a 12 month period?

Sure enough a quick check on his CDS 6 Wizard shows the number the LSC are relying on is about half of their claims in the current boundary. It looks as though they have not included work related to the towns second Police Station. If this is the case, and we are still investigating, then the entire rota has been miscalculated. Could this possibly be the case in the brave new post Carter world? Is this an "Autorecbot Duty Solicitor sub routine run time error 904"?

Given this is the first one we have looked at in any detail we perhaps need to be afraid! Please tell us of your experiences.

UPDATE

In addition to Shirley's comment we have had another firm only getting roughly half the number of raw cases allowed. We think that the original problem might be as a result of the exclusion of one of the two claim codes for the same local Police Station.

I decided to work from home today to try and (re)read all the background material necessary for our forthcoming training tour and Law London next Wednesday. It is half eleven and the phone and e-mail have not stopped all morning. On top of that I have been disturbed by both the milkman and the window cleaner. (Given what follows in the rest of this piece, and the amount both these have just charged me, either of these vocations might prove a fruitful career alternative for Legal Aid lawyers). There goes the door bell has gone again!

In the midst of all this is a call from Nigel Ford drawing my attention to this report. It seems that the LSC have been pressured into publishing it due to the persistence of the earlier mentioned Andrew Keogh - well done that man.

(Promotional call from Barclaycard interrupts)

If you do nothing else read the two page summary. There is not one of the 11 paragraphs that I would particularly highlight and it is written with the diplomacy of an experienced report writer. As Mr Ford says - "Couldn't have put it better myself".

My four word summary:

(Client call interrupts)

Carter Doomed to Failure.

COMMERCIAL RISKS TOO HIGH, SAYS LAPG

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today condemned the significant commercial risks placed on providers by the draft Specification to the Unified Contract. The Specification, published by the LSC in draft form on 1st March, is due to be implemented in October 2007, six months after the new Standard Terms.

Director Richard Miller said, "The Specification prohibits suppliers from undertaking the management of caseloads necessary to operate in a fixed fee environment, by imposing on solicitors a 'cab-rank rule', under which they will be required to take on every case that comes through the door if they have current capacity."

"The LSC is also reserving the right to cut the Standard or Graduated Fees during the short life of this contract if the average amount of work reported by the profession in any category decreases by more than 10%. So in the unlikely event that firms can achieve savings as the LSC wants to encourage, their reward will be to have the fees cut again."

He continued, "We are now told that, contrary to what is said in the 'Way Ahead', disbursements for travel costs will not be claimable on top of the Standard or Graduated Fee for controlled work. This represents a further, wholly unexpected, cut in already inadequate rates."

"On top of all of this, the dreaded Contract Compliance Audits are back with a vengeance, complete with extrapolation of results to all of a firm's non-standard claims and recoupment of costs previously paid. CCAs did huge damage to firms' cashflow when the LSC recouped hundreds of thousands of pounds legitimately claimed by firms, after inadequately qualified and poorly trained LSC staff carried out incompetent audits. The exercise single-handedly destroyed a previously quite reasonable relationship between the LSC and the profession. Last year, the LSC
indicated that CCAs were being phased out in favour of peer review and File Assessment - Value for Money. We thought we had the LSC's agreement to treat issues arising on such assessments as a contract management issue. Apparently not."

Miller concluded, "As if the uncertainties of the Standard Terms were not enough, the additional commercial risks placed on practitioners by this Specification are quite extraordinary. They go well beyond what any private business in any other sphere of Government activity would be expected to tolerate. We will be seeking substantial changes to the draft Specification in the coming weeks to try to ensure that firms have a viable commercial basis on which to operate."

Our friends at the LAPG have beaten us to some comments on last weeks avalanche of further consultations:

SOME IMPROVEMENT BUT STILL MAJOR CONCERNS, SAY LAPG

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today welcomed, with reservations, the improvements in the structure of the LSC's proposals for family graduated fees, but expressed continuing serious concern about the rates on offer.

Director Richard Miller said, "The structure set out in these revised proposals is a distinct improvement on the proposals from the Way Ahead document, particularly for care proceedings. Nonetheless, we are still sceptical as to whether fixed fee systems can be appropriate for all family work; and we remain seriously concerned that the rates payable under these proposals will not be sufficient to ensure an adequate supplier base for this work."

The documents published also included the LSC's intended scheme for immigration. LAPG committee member and immigration specialist Lawrence Lupin said, "There remain many questions about how the LSC has calculated the proposed payment rates under this scheme. The LSC has so far failed to answer these questions despite repeated requests. Most of the respected practitioners who have seen these figures have concluded that they are not viable. Under these fees, there is no scope to undertake quality work, and clients will suffer even if they are able to find a lawyer."

Miller also expressed concern about the pace and extent of change. "Today I have downloaded nineteen pdf files from the Legal Services Commission website, including annexes and regulatory impact assessments. This is on top of consultations published earlier this month on police station boundaries and the very high cost criminal case panel, not to mention the negotiations on the new unified contract. I am paid full time to keep on top of the LSC's initiatives, and I can barely cope with this blizzard of publications. How on earth can any practitioner who is trying to conduct a substantial caseload to a high standard be expected to do so? The sheer volume, speed and extent of the changes is liable to destroy the legal aid system even if the substance doesn't."

Knowing that most lawyers will be reading our usual, light hearted, "dress down Friday" post here, the LSC have chosen today to "bury" a series of consultations. (Actually it was yesterday but that rather spoils the story!).

The Immigration stuff and the Unified Contract we did of course trail yesterday. Unfortunately due to pressure of work I can't imagine we will be able to post as speedily about them as we normally do. Sorry maybe next week.

I have however, since this, been eagerly awaiting the ECMS (Electronic Case Management System) specification. This too is out today. To be honest we had been anticipating something somewhat more substantive. "It must have a box with lots of wires coming out of it" frankly doesn't take things that much further forward.

We intend to progress our ECMS project later this month so any further thoughts, on top of the almost universally positive earlier feedback, would be gratefully received.

We are now having a staff meeting so I might not get round to a "ddf" post - will see what we can do!

Thanks to Anon in the comments box who provides a link to the Law Society's take on the new unified contract. (Anon, why not adopt a pseudonym so we can differentiate between you and the rest of the Anon family).

I also hear that the new Immigration contract is out today. Doubtless the inbuilt advantage to the NfP sector will now disappear under the new "Unified Contract".

Finally, because this is all I can post today as I am off to Manchester on the PR training trail, if any Immigration practitioners want a chat about the above - phone or e-mail is fine.

You will have received these changes to your Civil and Criminal Contracts today I have to find them on the "interweb".

On a first scan the most noticeable point in the Criminal version is the weaving of Peer Review into the contract with a confirmation of the Cat 2 - Competence Plus, threshold for Preferred Suppliers.

It also entrenches the Assessment Reduction Rates as a PI (performance indicator). The set rate is 15% and failure will not initially constitute a contract breach. That said is anyone else experiencing a tougher taxation regime at the moment?

It also looks like this post might have been somewhat premature!

We discussed the LSC's "Drivetime Tables" below. These are the journey-time assumptions upon which the revised duty scheme borders are based. In addition to earlier observations, estimates significantly lower than practitioners experiences, average speed requirements above the speed limit etc., we decided to test one route.

The new border where our office is situated, Cleveland, will soon involve travel across a larger area. We therefore chose such a trip, Middelsbrough to Hartlepool, to exemplify the changes. For fun we also decided to film it and if you have 13 mins to spare you can watch it here. (Sorry about the quality but we struggled to get it onto Youtube - file too large).

If however you want to cut to the chase click on the continue link below.

Continue reading "Driveby Shooting (Video that is)" »

Just by chance I have just fielded a Devolved Powers query concerning claiming for emergency self grants (more later). The firm in question have also had cost reductions made for the very same Bradford - Keighley trip discussed previously. To enhance the scientific sample in yesterdays poll I asked about their expected journey time - was the reply "Oh about 14 minutes"? No - rather more like 40!

I am now going to road test Middlesbrough to Hartlepool from the office of some friends of this site. They say 29 minutes and I do think I can do it!!

More later.

This is neither a "dress down Friday" nostalgia trip nor a football related rant about the inappropriateness of the involvement anyone connected with that bit of London with the Mighty Leeds United.

(Though whilst on the subject of nostalgia here are two things which attracted my attention).

Rather this post relates to the growing number of calls I am getting about the "Annex G" proposed new boundaries for Duty Solicitor schemes. Apologies to Mr MacManus for the play on his song title, but it is merged schemes (Keighley is to be merged with Bradford) and the practical problems this will create which has been exercising the more forward thinking of my contacts.

The responses are by no means all negative and there are even contrasting views within the same propose schemes. For instance Andy and I have both had direct discussions with firms in London, for one the proposals are disastrous for the other enticing. The large new West Midlands schemes have attracted most approbation, and inspired the title to this post, although I have obviously changed the town in questions name and not included the swearing. As ever these discussion also demonstrate to me the unerring ability of the profession to adapt to new arrangements quickly, with a wide variety of practical stratagem being considered.

We have neither the local geographical knowledge nor the time to find the most absurd of these proposals so please feel free to use the comments box to do so.

*I however am more than happy to go to Keighley, especially if it involves a pint of the best beer in the world. (Choose "Landlord").

UPDATE

Friend of the site Nigel Ford draws my attention to the "Drivetime Tables" on which the proposed new boundaries are based. After some searching I find the entry relating to the journey between one of our Bradford clients and Keighley. Subsequent to this I conduct a highly scientific survey of a 3 Bradford solicitors regarding the fastest time in which they could undertake this journey (not an average or at rush hour etc). One says 30, his colleague in the office says 20 an third says 22 to 25 minutes. Lets take the median then (I think) of 22 mins for the fastest one-way trip - 22 mins for 9 miles at an average speed of 25 mph.

Click on the continue reading for the LSC assumption for the purposes of these proposals.

Continue reading "(I Don't Want to) Go To Keighley*" »

Further to our coverage of the strike comes this report in todays Gazette.

Seems like our Hull correspondent was correct.

The VHCC Best Value Panel (BVP) is, to my mind, by far the most interesting of this weeks glut of consultations. Not only is there more detail to go at there is an intriguing underlying methodology to consider - potentially equally applicable to other planned and forthcoming contracting initiatives.

Very briefly it works like this. There are, similar to modern job descriptions/person specifications, a set of "essential" and "desirable" criteria against which the firm will be assessed. These include number of VHCC undertaken and the experience of staff etc. Firms are scored against this and then their sealed bids for a number of cases (minimum 3 over 18 months) at one of three prescribed rates are then assessed for Value for Money (VFM). The latter process will give a weighting to "quality" but the mechanics for this are not described (unless I've missed them). Whether this, or something similar, will prove unnecessary, or too complicated, for mainstream criminal and civil contracting remains to be seen.

So why the title? Well this bears more than a passing resemblance to BIDCOM the last competitive tendering experiment they tried and something I predicted we would not see the like of again.

Potential bidders wanting more detailed advice should pick up the phone.

I was unable to post yesterday as I was on my travels - again PR training in Yorkshire. (To an interesting town where the 5 PR results we are aware of do not reflect our judgement of real quality).

Anyhow that aside the Gazette's front page story is the same one we ran earlier in the week. My chats with people suggest it is a "work to rule" rather than a strike (isn't the Law Societies advice that a strike is illegal?). The article contains some very apposite quotes (that from Brian Craig should be especially of concern for Carter proponents) and some of the comments here are likewise interesting.

Will try and post on VHCC, which is very interesting to a Legal Aid anorak like me, later but I have just been asked to prepare two Crown Court re-determinations with today as a deadline.

UPDATE

Andy is in a "striking" rather than working to rule town today!

FURTHER UPDATE

Apparently the LSC have been trying to entice Bradford Duty Solicitors to break the Leeds "strike" and have been successful in getting someone local to us, to cover in Hull. Any more details can be placed in the comments box.

This batch of proposals for consultation can be sub divided into three:

Police Station Boundaries
Fixed Fees
New Working Arrangements

Here is a brief guide as to how access the information you will immediately want to see - if phone calls today are anything to go by.

Boundaries

There are a range of maps, broken down by Regional Office, at (Appendix G i-v - in the "Related Documents" box on right of the frame) which outline the new boundaries. We found that printing them on a page by page basis speeded things up. These will be implemented - along with the remaining proposals, in October this year.

Fixed Fees

These can then be referenced to the proposed standard fee, itemised against your new scheme boundary, in either Appendix A, B or C. (Ignore D - H for this purpose). These are inclusive of vat, exclusive of disbursements - for now, and include an "allowance" for travel and waiting.

The two options identified in Ap. A-C relate to the two proposed options for paying for exceptionally high cost cases or "escape" matters as they are now called. All such claims will be audited!

Working Arrangements

Slot allocation will work on a similar basis to the Market Stability Measures albeit against more up to date data and including both investigations and proceedings class work.

The other key ideas for consideration are a return of a proposed minimum volume contract £50k, and the 20% out of area rule. The former is unlikely to have immediate impact upon many suppliers (although this may change as we move to Best Value Tendering or BVT). The restriction on only being able to undertake on an extra 20% of own client cases out of area may affect somewhat more firms.

There are some protections for "niche providers" and a limited acknowledgement of the problems faced by new "market entrant" firms. You can also anticipate some free training from the LSC - "sorry we don't know the answer to that but if you leave us a contact address we will get back to you".

I am now moving on to the VHCC BVP documents which I anticipate to be the most interesting of the lot - with luck another post on this later.

I will try to give a view on any queries via comments or the phone - preferably the former.

It is proposed that all requests for publicly funded advice in the Police Station should be processed via the Duty Solicitor Call Centre from October 2007. CDS direct will then provide initial advice before deploying a duty firm where attendance was required.

Dublin or Bangalore for the call centrers? We've a couple of good ones on Teesside!

To avoid lots of unintended consequences to his proposals, snap recruitment and sackings etc. Carter requested that a series of early, new rules be established so as to minimise this. There are 4 of these:

Slot Allocation

April to October 2007 Police Station rotas will allocated proportionately on the basis of the number of duty and own client police station claims between December 2005 and November 2006.

Service Requirements

Accredited reps and solicitors with the PSQ can undertake duty work.

Performance Standards

The 50% of Mags work by designated fee earners standard is reintroduced.

Moratorium

No new Criminal contracts will be granted between April and October 2007 with two small exceptions.

PACE consultation to follow (probably tomorrow).

Please keep us up to date about developments regarding the "two-day work to rule by angry criminal lawyers".

UPDATE

A London solicitor tells us that the plans for the capital involve essentially prefiguring Carter and putting all own client work through a small number of advocates, acting as agents for the wider group of firms. This will "test" the operational impact of putting more work through a smaller number of suppliers.

The Gazette is full of Carter and Legal Aid related stories this week. These cover Housing suppliers threats to quit over Carter, how the same proposals will impact upon Mental Health firms and a report on the bar getting a bigger split of the Legal Aid fund.

I cannot get a link to the larger feature on Labour MPs support for the Law Society save legal aid campaign neither a letter from a disgruntled criminal practitioner.

Not exactly the Blondie hit but we are hanging on the release of the finalised "Market Stability Measures" from the LSC, which are due out today (we think). This is particularly frustrating given we have a client similarly hanging on our advice regarding making an application for a fresh criminal contract.

Do any of our LSC based readers have an advance copy? or an update on the release date?

Sorry to start the week on a depressing note but for the third time in as many days I find myself advising as to the mechanisms for obtaining "hardship" payments on Crown Court cases.

It is the type of anecdotal evidence useless in negotiation over Carter etc. but can it really just be a coincidence?

Perhaps it is the Legal Aid version of this:

The Gazette summarises contributions to the HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing surrounding Carter implementation here. Perhaps I misheard Nigel and it was Ed Cape rather than Lee Bridges putting the knife in from an academic point of view. I think you can still listen to the lot on the above link.

Interesting reading nonetheless. Am I right in thinking that there is a bit of momentum building here?

Apparently Professor Lee Bridges appeared in front of the HoC Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday. It was discussing the implementation of Lord Carter's proposals. I cannot listen to this on my computer (because it is a Mac) but friend of this site Nigel Ford suggests that he rather forciably clarified his point that "market failure, is a real possibility". If anyone does listen please put some comments below.

I now have a link to the cover story from last weeks Gazette. It continues the discussion about the PDS.

This quote (emphasis added) caught my eye:

Prof Bridges added that with the introduction of price competitive tendering, the PDS should be retained as a ‘quality benchmark’ and to provide ‘a protection against market failure, which is a real possibility’.

Given the credence given to the Professors headline findings surely this far more important and far reaching observation deserves some consideration. Unsurprisingly this insight did not turn up in the LSC's press release.

From Criminal Solicitor Dot Net newsletter for 7th January 2007"

The Law Society has published a Parliamentary briefing for the Westminster Hall debate on the future of criminal legal aid on 11th January 2007:

"Please call your MP to tell them about the problems facing legal aid and urge them to attend the debate."

Here is the Law Society Briefing.

The front of this weeks Gazette does not make happy reading regarding this years proposals for change. Preferred Supplier gets some negative comment too.

We know that some LSC people read this site (though none of them have requested a mouse mat yet - would it be a disciplinary offence?).

On that basis here is a question that you might like to consider/answer.

Option 2 in the "Slot Allocation" chapter of the Market Stability Measures (download link not possible) proposes taking a snapshot of firms allocated slots, as of 28th November 2006, to determine allocation to the new scheme.

How will firms who merge post 28th November be treated?

Our friends a the CLSA are holding a National Meeting, open to all CDS Solicitors, to discuss the current situation.

It will be on 10th January 2007 at the NEC in Birmingham.

Here is the CLSA's response:

Lord Carters direction of travel has today been identified by the Department for Constitutional Affairs as the Way Ahead.

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association, along with other organisations and individuals, submitted a very detailed response to the recent consultation, contributing to the more than 2000 responses received, the vast majority of which cast great doubt on the best value tendering market model upon which hopes are now based.

The CLSA has been campaigning for change to the legal aid system for many years. Lacking long term direction and constantly the undervalued Cinderella of the public sector we have seen a failure to invest in the future result in radically reduced availability of legal advice to the most vulnerable.

Speaking today, CLSA Chair Ian Kelcey said:

Changes must be made across the CJS as a whole to eliminate wasteful operational methods and unnecessary bureaucracy. Steps in that direction would make a real difference. Fixed fees for doing a job where the other parties involved are inefficient or even obstructive are no recipe for a quality legal aid system.

The Lord Chancellor has told solicitors to knuckle down. That is unlikely to encourage practitioners to want to move towards change and may well be seen by the profession as insulting. They are already angry at the disastrous way in which means testing in the magistrates courts has recently been reintroduced.

Mr Kelcey added:

These proposals will not deliver a long term sustainable future for legal aid.  The timetable envisaged is unreasonably short and is more about saving money than ensuring the process works.

As ever the LAPG get their retaliation in first:

The Governments announcement following consultation on Lord Carters reforms amounts to no more than a stay of execution for legal aid firms, according to LAPG Director Richard Miller. Vulnerable clients can have little confidence that they will be able to get the legal advice they need in the future.

 
Miller said, The changes that have been announced are welcome, and give vital extra time to try to bridge the gulf between the profession and the Government. In particular, we welcome the acknowledgement that the proposals for family law need substantial revision and further consultation. But the DCA has not given ground on some of the most serious flaws in the proposals.

 
There is no understanding of the problems of fixed fees in social welfare law cases. The swings and roundabouts firms are supposed to rely on do not exist. Fixed fees penalise firms doing more complex work, and doing work for client groups with particular needs and difficulties, just as much as they penalise inefficient firms, if such an animal still exists in the legal aid system. The result is that many of the most experienced and skilled lawyers undertaking this work will be lost to the system. Advice deserts will worsen, and many more clients will be unable to get the help they need.

 
There is no polluter pays mechanism. If solicitors have to work on fixed fees that are calculated on the assumption that the system runs smoothly, there has to be direct and immediate compensation when it does not. When the CPS has lost the file, when the prison delivery service turns up four hours late, when the police officer is not there for the bailback, in every single case the solicitor must be compensated for the additional costs caused. Otherwise the business model for undertaking this work is seriously undermined; and if the business case does not stack up, it is once again the clients who will suffer.

 
Most significantly of all, the Government is still insisting that there is no more money for legal aid, despite the additional burdens the Home Office in particular has put on the system in recent years. The Government is right to say that this country has one of the best-funded legal aid systems in the world. It is something that should make us all proud. But the Government is demanding about 3 billion of work for its 2 billion, and that just does not work. What limited scope there is for greater efficiency cannot come close to plugging this gap. This stone is out of blood. Practitioners are voting with their feet because they cannot make a viable business of providing this service on the financial terms the Government is offering.

Here it is - Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead. Just published, off to read it, more thoughts later!!

UPDATE

October Revolution

I have scan read the document which is frankly disappointing. Whilst not "full speed ahead" the only significant concessions are on the implementation timetable or by making earlier proposals subject to a bit more "consultation". The overall "market based" approach is endorsed with Peer Review as the central quality determinant (although imposition of "competence plus" as the required threshold has been put back, especially in line with Preferred Supplier). Perhaps the best exemplar of this is Annex C which indicates which bits of Carter are "Accepted" or "Not Accepted". Out of 55 recommendations only 2 are in the latter category.

The two key ideological elements remain Output rather than Input funding (fixed and graduated fees) and Best Value Tendering. The first date for the latter, in crime, is set for October 2008 with the earliest proposed activity - new mags. standard fee proposals - is due for publication next month. It is on the move then.

There is a further brief summary here.

Use the comments box to air your views.

The Gazette joins in the climb down over civil fixed fees theme we have been pushing all week.

The bit I like is;

"Speaking to reporters after addressing delegates, Lord Falconer conceded that the government has ‘realised there are significant problems’ with fixed fees and that the figures put out by the Legal Services Commission ‘did not work’."

The e-Gazette does not reproduce the front page photo so here he is in panto last year.

Yesterdays "good news" story has inspired a flurry of contacts both by phone and e-mail, plus the comments on the actual story. The responses range from "phew" to "what about Crime?". Most though seem to hope that this might represent some sort of tipping point justifying wider relief.

At the same time Sandra has been doing some work on recent training feedback forms. Rather than being vain and printing testimonials here are two suggested future courses which I might now slow down preparing:

"How to make a successful bid - once consultation ends & the lunacy comes to pass!

"Running a Profitable Chip Shop"

Did you read this in the Times on Saturday like I did?

"Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that he was in effect scrapping controversial plans for fixed fees instead of hourly rates in family and civil legal aid cases pending a complete rethink. He also pledged to reconsider the timetable for the scheme, which had been due to start in April. It is likely that the proposed market-based reforms will not now come in before 2008."

Read the entire article here .

Delegates at recent courses will know that I have generally been more upbeat about the likely outcome of this process than most of them. Here is some confirmation of this stance, hopefully with more to come.

UPDATE

At the point of posting this story this I get a very spooky call asking me if I have seen the same story. In addition to that comes some interesting news from a live audit and the LSC's in-house view of the Preferred Supplier Scheme and social welfare categories. (Ring me if you want an insight). Unsurprisingly the audit team had not had the gist of the Times story explained to them - oh how well Steve and I remember that situation.

In the last two weeks I have written/prepared two appeals to Cost Committee on reduced CDS 7 claims. Both coincidentally involve clients ultimately acquitted of assault charges against police officers. The officers in both matters (two in one, 6 in the other) are effectively caught out lying. The first attendance note on the latter remarks how difficult the case will be given the need to discredit at least half a dozen serving officers.

In the light of all the Carter comment here this week one does wonder how such cases are likely to be defended in a post Carter world. By defence lawyers effectively working for free I expect.

In the post below the LAPG's Richard Miller makes the following observation:

"They (Legal Aid Solicitors) save the taxpayer many times more than they cost"

Is he psychic?.

Not cheap these miscarriages in justice are they?

More on Carter I'm sorry to say but the Legal Aid Practitioners Group has today published its response to the DCA/LSC consultation, “Legal Aid: A Sustainable Future.”

Director Richard Miller said,

"A sustainable future is the one thing these proposals have no hope of delivering. Practitioners from across the country and in all fields of law have told us that their firms will close if these changes are introduced. At our conference last Friday, we heard from practitioners who are already laying off staff in readiness for next April when these changes are due to take effect, and preparing to close their businesses. Clients will be struggling to find services from next April unless there is a major rethink."

Miller continued, "Legal aid solicitors act to stop children being wrongly taken into care, to ensure anyone accused of crime gets a fair trial, to help those fleeing torture to get protection, to make sure the elderly and vulnerable get the services and support they need. They save the taxpayer many times more than they cost, by helping people avoid or escape social exclusion and stop being a burden on the benefits system, the criminal justice system, the health system. And they help make us a more civilised society. For doing all this, they currently earn incomes equivalent to teachers and senior nurses, and now the Government wants to squeeze even more 'value for money' out of them."
 
"Well this stone is out of blood."

An abstract of LAPG response to Carter follows:

Continue reading "This Stone is out of Blood" »

There is some positive coverage of Legal Aid here today.

You can also join in the debate - I have.

The Times discusses Carter, following the publication of the LECG Report, and suggests a possible cataclysmic outcome. The advert alongside the article is purely coincidental one imagines.

From our perspective, and confirming the central message of our recent Carter training session, the risks identified at paragraph 3.65 of the report chime in with our central concerns:

"The risks are that the new working practices requiring additional responsibilities such as more extensive planning, training and business management introduce costs that are not considered in the Carter report."

UPDATE

It has even merited a discussion on the Simon Mayo programme on BBC Radio 5 Live.

Friend of this site, Richard Miller from the LAPG, was very good we thought!

Anon in the comments below submits this view of this recent event.

The show was conducted by Richard Collins and Crispin Passmore, various Legal Services Commission and DCA staff were also there to chat to attendees during coffee breaks.

Biggest losers, specialist Legal Aid firms who deal with Public Law or Community Law, who by the very nature of their expertise and specialisation, tend to deal with many difficult and complex cases, who under the new system will only get paid, the one size fits all price.

UPDATE

People at the Newcastle Carter session are reporting a less than convincing training session on means testing last night and also some tension at the Carter session in Lincoln. Nigel comments on his experiences above, which is worth posting here. Any other thoughts greatfully received.

I was at the same roadshow and for reasons that i won't bore you with had the doubtful pleasure of being at the "civil" and "crime" events. The atmosphere between the 2 was quite markedly different, at the "civil" it was more we want to get this right and we are listening to your views - yes I know it holds about as much water as " the cheques in the post " and " yes dear you look lovely in that new dress" but hey that was the tenure. With the civil meeting there was certainly far more animosity to the extent that everyone forewent coffee to "ask" more questions. Richard Collins was as ever "slick" Derek Hill far less so. I was assured it was a genuine consultation but in view of the fact that everyone who responded re the funding committee changes was against them but they went ahead anyway I have my doubts. All in all somewhat depressing!

It was almost a Carter special in the Gazette last week. A front page article deals with responses to the proposals, which continues in the letters. There is also coverage of a plan to pre-empt the establishment of a CLAN in London.

All of these chime in with the feedback we are getting around the UK.

We are having a Carter day today. What's one of those you might well ask?

Well Andy, Steve and I have as yet had no time to get together to discuss the proposed changes. So we thought a morning put aside to run through the various proposals might make sense. It is also an opportunity to begin to think how our support service will need to be changed to meet the new arrangements.

As I am once again late to the office and the gang is here already I better stop doing this and put my Carter head on instead.

A commenter asks for a link to the revised proposed fees referred to in this article.

Here it is.

Here is a letter from Richard Miller I thought best to share with you.

Dear all,

I raised this with Crispin Passmore at the LSC, and have just had an apology from him for their error, but I am not aware of the LSC having done anything to alert people to this mistake.

Does this article suggest that the Carter tide is beginning to turn? Certainly Childcare lawyers might feel slightly heartened.

Who said a bit of old fashioned heckling doesn't work.

An early Law Society survey findings into practitioners thoughts on LSC/Carter proposed fee levels here.

HAT TIP

Anon in the comments box below.

I had a day out of the firing line yesterday, to consolidate my reading of all the current consultation documents, in preparation for this. I was still unable to dodge all the phone queries, one of which included the first failed Crime CCA in some time. A couple of others related directly to my reading matter.

I spent a lot of time considering the LSC's subsidiary document, especially with regard to graduated fees. Now as I've indicated before the immediate feedback we have received to these proposals, despite their supposed "cost neutrality", has to date been universally negative. Indeed two firms have indicated up to a 60% disparity between current averages and those proposed. Now I have no way of immediately confirming this, in fact given the gradation, this requires data not normally collated by firms, and consequently a little bit of work. I can however not square my half a dozen or so initial phone conversations on the issue with what the LSC are saying.

Any thoughts gratefully received - we will forward them to the LAPG to help in their responses.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group has today launched a discussion forum
on its website for practitioners to share their concerns about Lord
Carter's reforms. It is available to anyone to contribute, not just LAPG
members. It can be accessed here

Director Richard Miller said, "It is vitally important that the
profession reads the Carter report and consultation paper and that
people share their hopes, fears and ideas about the proposals. This
forum gives people the chance to discuss the proposals with other
practitioners, and to influence the response of the profession's
representative bodies."

He continued, "The more information we have from firms about the way the
reforms will affect their businesses and their clients, the better we
can represent their interests in our response to the consultation and in
the ongoing discussions we will be having with the LSC and DCA in the
coming months."

LAPG is an independent grass roots movement, representing around 600
firms at the heart of the provision of publicly funded legal services.

My initial take on the LSC contribution to Carters civil proposals was that they had steamed in too early in hobnailed boots. Our commentators thought so too as, seemingly, did the LAPG (though they are more polite than me!).

Richard gets a bigger platform for his views here and the remainder of those quoted seem to be in line too. In particular Christina Blacklaws echoes our interpretation of Carter's grasp of "the dawning reality, of a fragile (CLS) market" which seems to have passed the LSC by.

Last week I spoke to a multi contract civil supplier who would experience an overall 30% reduction on the basis of the LSC's standard fee proposals. No amount of "efficiency savings" are going to remedy that. A radical change in contract delivery might however, either that or fish and chip shops and plumbing as an alternative career.

I have spoken with two firms who have had a look at this, recalculated their recent claiming profile and arrived at some interesting conclusions.

If you have the time and the IT functionality give it a go. If not download our CDS 6 and CMRF Wizards then have a try.