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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is the plea indicated in the title? -

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

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

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

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

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

The last sentence looks on face value to be portentous!

Check back in later and we will provide an update.

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

The first foray in this conflict, a battle of Press Releases, has begun. The Law Society's opened up with this one from which the following seems the most significant extract:

"The Society asked the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for a draft of the contract it would be inviting firms to sign, and to meet with the Society and the other representative groups to discuss the terms. The LSC rejected that reasonable request, and has chosen instead to send the contract direct to firms without any discussion".

The LSC's entirely predictable rebuttal now follows.

We have commented previously on the LSC implicitly blaming the Law Society for the current pass rather than reflecting upon their own responsibility in this regard.

Once more we are left pondering how a Peer Reviewer would rate legal advice to sign this contract in these circumstances?

I waited all Friday for news on the process for gaining a new 6 month CDS contract in January. It turned up a bit too late to post so I saved it for this morning.

The long and short of it is that you will not need to express an interest or "tender" for a contract rather you have, in effect, up to 4pm on Wednesday 31st October, to sign up to the new contract. This will be followed up by the submission of your numbers of employed Duty Solicitors by the end of November. The new contract, involving Duty rotas based upon the above, will begin on January 14th 2008 with a further contract round in July and ultimately Best Value Tendering to follow.

There will be, we believe, no consultation or negotiation. Stay tuned in for further information.

The LAPG's comments on last weeks announcements:

LAPG welcomes the postponement of the criminal proposals. Hopefully this will allow the LSC to fully reflect upon the impact of imposing such a large number of changes simultaneously and the potential damage that is likely to be caused too many practices and the resultant effect upon quality and availability of services for clients. Any business will find it difficult to tolerate and survive so many changes to an already frail structure.

Further to our report on the CDS Contract Bombshell comes further information on the way ahead from here.

Perhaps of most import in this document is the indication that new contracts will be available to all including new entrants i.e. the current moratorium comes to an end.

The CLSA's take on events is here.

HAT TIP

Andrew Keogh
Crimeline

Here are the LAPGs views of the latest CDS Direct proposals:

The LSC has today announced that it intends to proceed with a scheme whereby all requests for advice in the police station will be directed via the Duty Solicitor Call Centre, even where the client has requested their own solicitor, and in less serious cases, the only advice given will be telephone advice from the centralised telephone service CDS Direct.

LAPG Director Richard Miller said, "This change will confuse vulnerable clients into forgoing legal advice in the police station, which may well lead to more miscarriages of justice. We do not see how this proposal can save anyone's time or money. It replaces a single phone call from the police to the solicitor with a complex procedure that will involve numerous calls at the LSC's expense.

"Diverting clients to CDS Direct when they have asked for their own solicitor does not make sense from a purely human perspective. Where a solicitor has an established relationship with the client, the solicitor may well be able to persuade the client to accept the situation and co-operate as necessary. Conversely, a telephone call from a complete stranger may well merely generate a stream of invective and a refusal to
co-operate. We therefore believe that the police will be significantly disadvantaged by this scheme as well.

"All in all, we believe there are many good reasons for not going ahead, and none for going ahead."

Our comments yesterday with regard to the Market stability Measures and in particular, the Police Station Duty Slot allocation have proven correct.

One mouse mat is presently being despatched to our Bradford clients, who, after a number of telephone calls, managed to obtain the letter from the LSC (yet another one from Derek Hill) confirming that the slot allocation for Police Station Duty work will remain the same in May 2007, postponing the implementation of the new rotas until June 2007. The letter is somewhat convoluted, but reading between the lines, we believe there are clearly some serious issues with the data upon which the LSC wish to rely.

We now await with interest as to what option they choose to adopt after – you guessed it - another period of consultation with representative bodies.

If you have not already had sight of this letter, please contact our office for a copy (tel: 01642 225553) or send an email request to jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk.

STOP PRESS

We understand from speaking to our clients that a letter is to be sent to all Crime Practitioners  confirming that the LSC policy on duty allocation is to be reviewed next month and that the May 2007 slots will be allocated in the same way as the April 2007 allocation.  [Free mouse-mat to the first person to fax a copy to us on 01642 225554].

The LSC concede that there were “minor (sic) errors” with the data they based their original calculations on; hence the change of mind. 

October 2007 now 1/4 favourite for the implementation of the new allocation process?  April 2008 anyone?

Steve Barnes writes:

Given that the Grand National is imminent ….

…. they’re off …. well, nearly ….

The 12th February 2007 Duty Allocation proposals are to be put on hold.

We were informed last week, by a firm in the North West, that one of the London co-ordinators for the new Duty Slot allocation process has admitted that they have been inundated with so many representations that they are struggling.  Subsequently, the (delayed) 1st May 2007 implementation date is likely to be put back further.

Possibly the National that never was?  Or is October 2007 now more likely?  Thoughts? and what odds will you offer me on my prediction(s)?

Further to this post yesterday we have now heard of serious problems in four regions, London, West Midlands, Yorkshire & Humberside and the North West. The LSC have acknowledged there is a problem in at least two of these. Use the comments box to let us know of your experience and DO check your allocation.

Has anybody had recent experience of Duty Solicitor compliance exercises being run by the LSC? (We know about Bradford).

If you have we would be grateful for a comment, a call or an e-mail.

Here we thanked the LSC, primarily for putting us on the online marketing list rather than for the immediate content of the first e-mail (CDS form updates). We do not recant that thanks but....

Why oh why oh why do they have to release a further amended CDS 17 only a few days later.

It is not currently available on the LSC web-site so to try and help the above download of the CDS 17 (minus question 5) is the one to use from February 2nd.

Yesterdays last post on the PDS was admittedly lazy.

Since then I have had the opportunity to consider this. If you can't be bothered reading the whole thing all you really need is the first sentence:

"The Public Defender Service (PDS) provides a better quality of service than private practice according to independent research published today".

Now I will not be reading the whole 350 odd pages of the report and penning an independent critique (I have little doubt the LAPG's response is on the money). What gets me is the tone. Who decided, at a time when relationships between the profession and the LSC are arguably at an all time low, that such an incendiary opening gambit makes any kind of political or PR sense?

How does this tie in with the promises of "more constructive, genuine partnership relationships"? How does this square with the"overall message", spoken in a "conciliatory tone" that we are "all in this together"?

Apparently not, the Commission can do it better themselves.

There are many reasons I am happy no longer to be in the employ of the successor to the Legal Aid Board. Today I am so glad not to be out auditing a hard pressed CDS supplier and having to defend/discuss this with it's senior partner!

The response does however confirm that they should, in crime at least, provide a "positive balance of 7.5%".

This is a quote from this post below.

Today we had a rare visitor to the pulsing heart of the JRS Empire - Queensway House. She was a somewhat perplexed visitor having just been told by her Account Manager that her Criminal SMP needs reducing by around 40% for the rest of the year. Having made an attempt to understand this claim she was seeking an impartial eye on the situation.

We have just run the numbers on a worst case scenario basis i.e. we have anticipated likely claims at end March 07 on the basis of the lowest likely average billing for the remaining 5 months. If they achieve this, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not, they will be left with with a "positive balance" of 1%. This if the SMP remains the same.

If the SMP is reduced in line with the Account Managers proposals this will generate a "positive balance" of 10% - but in favour of the LSC - 17.5% worse than the "CDS GCC Monthly Payment Rules 2002" provide for.

Remember "we are in this together"!

Sandra writes:

Please note our CDS6 Generator has been updated for November reporting and is now available on this site: scroll down the left hand side and click on the link 'Reports, Forms and Brochures'. Keep moving down the document list until you see the heading ‘Generators’.

The LSC Online version of our CDS6 Generator is just about complete - as this is of a more technical nature, please email us if you would like to go on the set-up list: jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk.

Our new Autumn Claim Code (v2) laminates - now showing the 2U code - are ready to go. Please email or call the numbers on the left hand side for your copies.

Friend of this site, Andrew Keogh over at Crimeline, has been testing the profession's feelings about means testing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, here is the conclusion:

"Following repeated assertions by the legal aid minister Vera Baird and Derek Hill (DCA) that means testing was working well, CrimeLine decided to carry out a survey of its members. 89% believe that means testing is not working".
 
Full details can be found here.

If you've missed it, here is a recent letter sent to CDS suppliers. It is not that this is demonstrative of the complete administrative balls up that means testing has been, which makes me so annoyed. Neither is it the "make it up as we go along" approach which has wound me up. It is the fact that after just making a large number cost code laminates incorporating the new 2T code along comes 2U. Or is it just part of their famous catchphrase?

Back to the laminator for Joanna then.

Gavin joins the means testing debate here.

As ever the Gazette web site is trailing in well behind the snail mail paper version. That means you have to rip the plastic bag to get to the headline story. not surprisingly this concerns the "shambolic" means test. This CLSA protocol is covered in some detail as are, Ian Kelcey, its Chairman's views. Have a read if not too busy chasing NI numbers.

We continue to receive evidence in support of the articles main contention.

UPDATE

Here is a belated link to the article and here is a depressing letter in the same publication.

As promised now the eligibility calculator has been released here is a link to it.

Whilst on this topic there has been a good deal of discussion about a key concept in the means test, that of “equivalised income”. Try spell checking “equivalised” – no suggestions. Try a dictionary – not there. Google it however and you get this. For those who like graphs there are these.

Hope this clarifies things!

Yesterday saw the return of the means test for Criminal Legal Aid in the Magistrates Court.

I have never seen such unanimity amongst the profession as this (Contracting and Carter always had at least some minority support).

First there has been unanimous reporting feeling about the explanatory road-shows. Useless! This has been coupled with deep sympathy, amongst those I've spoken too, for the poor souls "tasked" with delivering these highly inconclusive sessions.

Next has been the "jotters" received yesterday. With one voice the "how much will this have cost?" question has been raised, as has a similar query about their practical value.

Beyond that, operational difficulties reach our ears in significant numbers; you can't apply here, take the papers to the office down the road, no - we will not grant an adjournment to sort out Legal Aid, we want them posted not handed in, and many more. That's without all the structural problems, N.I. numbers and partners signatures, and those peculiarities which always get missed in the first design of an an initiative - especially when seemingly so poorly (hurriedly?) prepared as this one.

Any further contributions to this tale of woe can be added in the comments below.

The return of Means Testing in the CDS is now within spitting distance and we can report a number of calls seeking advice in this regard. The current state of play regarding the eligibility calculator is as follows.

If you you were concerned about this, read this and rejoice.

The moral of the day - Don't panic until you have to.

Our original CDS 6 Wizard was a result of strong prophetic powers and a moment of inspiration. Having spent yesterday analysing data to assist a firm frame its thinking about Carter, our hunch that maintaining a record of all contract billing data would be vital has proved spot on. (I am most smug and self satisfied that we had this vision as long ago as 1999, (although it realisation took a little longer).

Today we launch an "on-line" version for firms wishing to bill in this more secure manner and in advance of it becoming mandatory. This version has nothing to do with any of the above, rather it is down to a young man with a very big brain called Adam Mallinson who works for Bassra Solicitors in Bradford.

It works pretty much as before, with a couple of extra buttons, but requires personalisation e.g. passwords and LA account numbers. This time round we would like to monitor how many firms are using it and also to avoid mistakes we will customise it for you. Consequently we want to release it on a request only basis, rather than have it available on download here. So if you want one, and it is still free give us a ring or an e-mail. We will require your full LA account number.

Finally, on behalf of all users, can I thank Adam and Ray, his boss, for taking this product to this new level of sophistication. Thanks.

In the language of spy movies this blog is not a secure channel of communication.

So to mystify the enemy here is a coded message.

Firms, ring us, CDS, audit facing.

That should do it. (If you don't get it ring us anyhow).

Especially if this is in your town.

The swearing speedily changed into smug satisfaction (and alliteration). And once again we are in the right.

Having recently paid a not insignificant sum to update (yet again) our CDS Claim Code laminates we downloaded this.

With the air turning blue we checked the large pile of laminates to discover that we had the correct wording and a trip to the skip was not necessary.

If you want a free copy contact the office and speak to Sandra or our latest recruit Joanna.

And here is the main Focus on CDS 19.

Another May Day deadline (well nearly).

CDS 6 reporting codes are set for another spring clean. In comes a new claim code 2S for Advocacy Assistance claims for Sex Offender Orders and two new outcome codes G1 & H1. The latter are to be used following a conditional caution and the issue of a fixed penalty, respectively.

There is also a new description of outcome code E1 - "Client released following reprimand/warning/simple caution."

You have to use these first in June when you report Mays work but you can practice on your April claims if you want.

And yes we will be abusing vast amounts of child labour to produce huge quantities of new laminates containing all codes in the near future. Wait for an announcement here before placing your order.

Further to this I was yesterday at a firm where two of the three Duty Solicitors present had somehow slipped through the registration net. We intend to investigate this further however in the meantime any others who have not received a letter should either register online (scrolling down from here to find the form) or contact the Law Society for clarification.

We are half way through the Carter briefing mini-tour. It is difficult to describe the general reaction but if I had to I might create a new phrase "resigned incredulity".

It is difficult to find anyone who is (even privately) vocally pro the proposals. We have however spoken to some who might place them in the "opportunity" rather than "threat" section of their business plan SWOT analysis. Anecdotally I would put this ratios at a "Whiskas" mirroring 9:1 against. Those in the 1 camp are unsurprisingly the larger players in their locality yet they are not without concerns of their own not least that the final scale of the project is very hard to decipher.

If nothing else we do seem to have managed to dispel some of the immediate panic - including some who on the back of this first document have begun seriously to think about mergers.

At the end of this post we indicated that we would be offering, in the long tradition of JRS, a briefing about the current proposals. We have now finalised dates which are as follows:

Monday 27 Feb.
Marriot Hotel, Gateshead

Monday 6 Mar.
Jurys Inn, Manchester

All sessions start at a Criminal Practitioner friendly 4 pm, and run till 6 pm attracting 2 CPD points. Booking forms will be sent by e and snail mail very shortly. In the meantime you can reserve places by contacting Sandra in the Middlesbrough Office.

We can also deliver the course in house or to "consortia" of local firms outside these 4 regions. If this is of interest get in touch.

P.S. I payed at Valley Parade for Swain House U13s in the 1975 City Supporters Cup running out 3 - 2 winners over Great Horton after extra time.

Update

If you can't make our dates friend of this site Rodney Warren is also on the briefing trail.

You can catch him as follows:

Cardiff, 15th March
Birmingham, 20th March
Chester, 21st March
Leeds, 22nd March
London, 28th March

Go on treat yourself come to both!!

We have been made aware of a free case law update service from the Institute of Prison Law. If you have not received this direct and are interested you can sign up here.

It's not made it onto their web site yet but this weeks Gazette confirms that the LSC have "delayed" competitive tendering. This they claim is to avoid a clash with the Carter review and to ensure consistency with its outcome.

Rodney Warren goes further and comments that price based tendering may now be sunk for good. Lets hope he's right.

As indicated yesterday there is quite a bit of, presumably corporate target instigated, activity to reconcile contracts by March 06. We are currently running a couple of IRs in this regard one with an interesting "entire agreement" point arising out of Tuckers & Others arbitration result on cost neutrality.

We have also had a number of phone calls on the subject. Of particular interest to CDS suppliers is the issue of to what percentage the contract should be balanced. It was one of the selling points of the new scheme that firms would be paid up to 10% more than their contract payments to compensate for the WIP impact of the new scheme. The firms we are speaking to are being told that their contracts must absolutely balance and the 10% is not to be allowed.

Anyone out their with similar experience and perhaps a positive outcome?

We obviously are resisting this.

A flurry of appeals (well 2 in 2 days) in the South West has occurred. Both to be heard on the same day too. We have also discovered that you can fly from Leeds Bradford thus avoiding that terrible c. 5 hour return drive.

More distant travel on the cards.

We now have a short summary of the Criminal Contract changes available, anybody interested should ring Sandra at Middlesbrough.

Northallerton is a fine Yorkshire market town. It has one of these, one of these and one of these.

We have long established links with the town and know a little about this part of the County. I had intended to post a longer piece on this history following comments made by a delegate at the Leeds seminar this week. Instead I thought I would simply demonstrate what the franchising and contracting has achieved in safeguarding access to justice. (Search for Northallerton with a radius of 5 miles).

As will be obvious from the posts below I have spent a great deal of time talking with "high cost" PACE firms recently. I actually went to see a firm in this position on Friday. The high cost element is travel. On just a casual glance at PS identification codes it is clear that they travel to at least one local "advice desert" on a fairly regular basis.

Rather than the threat of sanctions surely the LSC should be coming out and thanking the firm for helping them meet their statutory obligations.

I'm in between Cost Committee hearings with a skeleton staff due to illness so only a short post today. And not a happy one at that (although I suspect a reasonable result from yesterdays hearing).

It now seems as though it is not just the top 10% who will be getting PACE audits this Autumn. Faxes received yesterday indicate that two other merely "high %" firms will have a substantial number of files called for on-site examination in the next few weeks.

For further details - or information about the North East Top 10% League Table - get in touch.

This is very, very spooky indeed.

I wrote the "Jackanory" piece below due to a strong sense of deja vu and now look what�s happened.

We have often commented on our predictive skills but this is just a bit too scary.

Cross my palm with silver and I will read you Tarot cards!!

Once upon a time in a far away place happy family lawyers angered their overlords in the LSC. "Your average costs are too high", they said, so we must punish you and reduce your matter starts accordingly. They called this retribution AMC-SMC.

But over time this did not work and the overlords remained dissatisfied with these greedy subjects.

"We cannot allow this to continue" they said, and so they decreed that from thenceforth a new regime called TFF would be enforced. However hard and however long these lawyers toiled for their masters they would always get one set fee. And they all lived unhappily ever after.

As time passed, and the treasury remained half full, the overlord's gaze fell upon criminal lawyers. Some of this grumpy and unpopular bunch also had average costs which were too high. And so the overlord�s sheriffs were sent around the land to deal with these miscreants. This retribution was to be called "the 10% club".

To be continued......

Apologies if this is boring people but I spent most of Friday analysing criminal billing stats. in preparation for a meeting with the LSC and a client. I don't want to put too much detail up in such a public place � and believe me we can do detail!

These particular clients spend on average an extra 12 minutes at the police station than is the regional average. I think we can make a sustainable argument however that this saves the fund a minimum of �10,000 a year in the proceedings class. Personally I think the LSC should be coming out to thank them.

Will let you know how well this runs.

The phones continue to light up to calls from "top 10%" criminal firms. Having run the numbers a few times now I have a robust opinion of the value of this "performance indicator". What is crystal clear is that it is meaningless outside a consideration of the other factors at play in the provision of police station advice.

The case I have just finished has made this case quite strongly and so we are back to the Regional Office to ask for further comparative data. If you need a template letter yourself get in touch.

Focus 48 arrived last week and can also be found here. Much of interest especially on Preferred Suppliers.

This week however we are interesting in translating the LSC�s �Corporate Targets� as discussed at page four of this issue.

This post involves the intention to reduce Police Station costs by 5% by "focussing on solicitors offices where costs are particularly high". This relates to the article �Not so SOOPER� in the archive here.

So what does this focus involve once you have been identified as "particularly high costs"?

Continue reading "Lost in Translation" »

The silence is further shattered by a number of panic calls from the more senior end of the Criminal Defence fraternity.

They all ask:

"Will I have to do the Duty Solicitor accreditation? It will be like retaking my driving test and I could well fail!"

This stampede seems to have been sparked by a recent leaflet from the Law Society.

The answer can be found in Focus on CDS 17 page 3 which you can download here.

�These requirements do not apply to current Duty Solicitors�

The argument about Crown Court files and franchising is as old as the scheme. The different taxation and payment structure lead a number of practitioners to spread the rumour that they fell outside the scope of the franchise audit. Not so, never so.

Over the years this has manifested itself in examples such as failure to include Crown files in file review and their fee earners in supervisory activities. That aside its fair to say that Crown files have largely slipped under the audit radar. Why so? There encompass fewer SQM requirements and being larger tend to frighten off the time conscious assessor.

Under current proposals they can now constitute 25% of a peer review sample. Time to have a review of file management practice we think.

We are becoming increasingly pessimistic about a change of heart from the powers that be regarding competitive tendering. If we are correct then price based bidding will soon become a reality. Have a look here.

The first question is "can you compare your firm's performance to these stats?"

If not you will need to - and soon. If you are using our CDS 6 Wizard the answer is YES. Get your free copy today.