More from the LAPG:

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today accused the Ministry of Justice of “wilful blindness” in refusing to acknowledge the severe threat its proposals pose to the legal aid system.

Director Richard Miller said, “The Government says that it ‘does not accept that the provider base is generally in decline’, despite ample evidence from independent consultants that shows it is. Only last week, Crispin Passmore was expressing his disappointment that a well-respected firm in the north-east had given up legally aid immigration work. The Government needs to reflect on why, if it is on the right track, good firms are giving up, and what effect this might have on its assumption that ‘prices will not increase overall under best value tendering.’

“The Ministry says it is ‘less concerned about the conclusions of the Otterburn Consulting research than would otherwise be the case’ because they have managed to maintain 100% coverage of police station duty schemes under the present funding arrangements. Why is past duty solicitor coverage relevant to their attitude to the Otterburn report? Otterburn casts significant doubt on the ability of firms to survive the cuts in fee rates they are proposing across the whole of criminal practice. Nothing has been offered to undermine his conclusions.”

Miller added, “The introduction of fixed fees in October is to go ahead. Which bit of ‘The introduction of these fee schemes for the short transitional period should therefore be halted’ did they mistake for an endorsement?”

He concluded, “Repeatedly saying that they want to help more people and maintain high standards will not make it so. The Ministry is guilty of wilful blindness to the evidence of the likely impact of what they are doing.”

LAPG comment on the family paper issued by the LSC on Friday:

Director Richard Miller said, "The revised family proposals show clear signs of the LSC having listened to the profession's concerns. The willingness to defer introduction of the private law proposals for work after the issue of proceedings, in order to have further discussions with us, is very welcome. Other smaller changes are also appreciated, such as the agreement to pay the full fee even if the client is not involved for the whole case, and to allow for exceptional cases at level 1 where a divorce petition is involved. All in all, while we still have concerns about the level of these fees, and about the extent to which fixed fees will work at all in this field, the current proposals should avoid serious meltdown in October."

Steve Barnes writes:
I was told yesterday that someone responsible for the Court Duty allocation for a town in West Yorkshire forgot to allocate anyone for Saturday Court; his rather blase response to the understandable queries raised was to say that if any firms are interested he would take the solictor's details and "draw lots out of a hat" - same approach as was once taken for CCA samples - do the people involved have a stake in the local milliners?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT RICHARD MILLER 020 7960 6068

LONDON 03/04/2007

LAPG CONDEMNS “ABUSE OF POWER” BY “LOATHED” LSC

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today condemned the LSC’s “abuse of power” which saw the majority of legal aid solicitors sign the new unified contract with a heavy heart.

LAPG Chair Roy Morgan said, “The LSC is required to act as a responsible public body, acting reasonably. It appears that in Britain today, a responsible public body is one that uses economic duress, and questionable threats to remove firms’ current business, to force suppliers to sign a contract; and not just any contract, but one that was so fundamentally flawed that a firm of commercial contract lawyers has said they would recommend that a client should not sign it.”

Director Richard Miller said, “This was an abuse of power by the LSC that will not lightly be forgotten or forgiven. I have seen many of the letters firms sent in with their signed contracts. Even in the worst days of franchising and contracting from the past fifteen years, I have never seen anything approaching the degree of contempt and loathing expressed in them. This is typified by the letter from 94 firms in the Times yesterday (Monday), denouncing the LSC for its ‘cynical’ actions and decrying ‘those who are driving the process of destruction of legal aid’.”

He continued, “The forcing through of this contract highlighted the worrying extent of the power the Government has over the lawyers whose job is to stand up for the rights of ordinary citizens. What does it say about the independence of those lawyers, who almost universally feel that the changes heralded by this contract will harm clients greatly, when the Government can impose its will on them by means of economic pressure?”

In response to the news that the LSC would shortly be “providing details of a new civil bid round as part of the CLS Strategy for improving access to joined-up services”, Miller commented, “Presumably therefore, some of the firms who returned their signed contracts will be getting their termination notices almost by return, in order to enable the LSC to run its bid round. How can any business be expected to survive in this system? LAPG joins with the Law Society in saying that it has no confidence in the ability of the LSC to implement this change programme in a manner that will ensure a sustainable legal aid system.”

LAPG is an independent grass roots movement, representing over 500 firms at the heart of the provision of publicly funded legal services. Website www.lapg.co.uk

END OF RELEASE
=====================================================================
Simon Pottinger adds [from the States]:

"Richard might have said that any firm advising a client to sign such a contract would probably be found "below competence" or worse on Peer Review".

Marcel Berlins gives his take on the situation facing entry to the Bar here.

Whilst on the training trail practitioner discontent is something of an occupational hazard. Yesterday I spoke to a number of people both unhappy generally and also bemoaning the fact they are "trapped" in the publicly funded scheme rather than doing more lucrative private client work.

As our friends at the LAPG point out we now have a new Chief Executive who needs to hear these concerns more than I do - especially those in the "fragile" parts of the market and are considering and escape route. For our part we will be happy to forward any such comments for those not wishing to do so direct.

I tend to try and avoid politics on this blog but Gavin over here picks up on the recent "rebalancing" of the criminal justice system debate in two separate posts.

As Mrs Merton might say, "lets have a heated debate".

The Law Society seem to have got their response to the Preferred Supplier Scheme about right.

They too spot the drift away from "low up-front entry criteria" implied by an increase in remote monitoring, Peer Review and file assessment. They also, again concurring with our experience, describe the last two elements as not yet being "sufficiently refined".

Problems with Relationship Mangers and the age old issue of schemes like this resulting in "spending more, rather less, unremunerated time meeting the LSC's requirements" are also covered.

Where we diverge are Devolved Powers. Most of the feedback we've received is the opposite - we would rather they made speedy grants of certificates and we faced less paperwork and the risk of retrospective sanction.

That aside sensible, measured analysis which will probably achieve little practical amendment to the proposals.

Just mentioned Carter below when this press release arrives from the Association of Major London Criminal Firms.

See what you think.

"The Association of Major London Criminal Law Firms welcomes the
publication of Lord Carter's report on the procurement of Criminal Legal
Defence Services and accepts the analysis that the system is in need of
wholesale reform. The Association supports the restructuring of the
supplier base but remains to be convinced that price competitive
tendering is the best method by which to secure best value. A Better
recognition of the costs drivers that remain outside the influence of
criminal law suppliers would be welcomed. The Associations members
believe that the report represents an interesting challenge and propose
to constructively engage with the Review Team to shape a reformed system
for the delivery of high quality Criminal Defence Services."