We have just received notification of another PR Category 4 result being reviewed up to a Category 3. Things are on a bit of a roll at the minute.
I am posting from afar today whilst delivering some in-house shouting (thats CPD training for the uninitiated) so a short post only.
After yesterdays gloom how about something decidedly more cheery in the form of another Peer Review category 2 result? What's more it is their second so they are now competence plus in both of their contracted areas. Nice going. The recent run of results is distinctly encouraging.
I won't spoil the mood by talking about international football.
With the most recent Peer Review appeal in first draft and sent to the clients for consideration a live result from another long standing client drops on my desk. The "Major Areas of Concern" section, around which the final gradation largely hangs, is of similar weight to that under appeal however this firm have got a, deserved, Threshold Competence (3) rating.
One appeal and two mainstream results in the last three days - the PR pace seems to be picking up again.
On the back of yesterdays Peer Review appeal success one of our oldest clients today report a Category 2 - Competence Plus score. See it's not all bad news and misery here!
Whilst writing a set of Peer Review representations we are informed of our second successful result. I will be sitting in a cloud of Smug for the rest of the day.
The firm in question also received someone else's result from the LSC.
With VHCC bidding deadline passed we return to the day-to-day grind. So yesterday was back to Peer Review training. In this context I did recently spot the long awaited Family: Improving your Quality Guide.
Happy reading.
On the same PR theme, and by way of balance, here is the LSC CE's response, to recent criticisms of the scheme by the Reviewers themselves.
Quality for clients is as fundamental to legal aid reform as improving access and value – the reforms aim to raise quality, not just maintain it.
Despite claims from some peer reviewers (see [2007] Gazette, 12 July, 15), quality need not cost more. Peer review data for legal aid from the regulatory impact assessment for Legal Aid Reform: The Way Ahead shows that higher quality is often no more expensive, and in many cases costs less, than average quality. In any case, the civil fixed fees do not reduce the overall budget – most providers will receive more than they do now for such work.
In their letters, the crime and family peer reviewers point out that they, in isolation, cannot assure quality. We agree. The work of high-quality peer reviewers is essential, but alongside this we have introduced other measures to monitor and improve quality for clients.
We will be monitoring ‘case mix’ to ensure providers continue to take on the more complex and time-consuming cases under fixed fees. Any providers failing to do so will be in breach of their contract. Exceptionally complex cases can still be paid at hourly rates.
Over the past year, we have run workshops for more than 1,000 legal aid firms and agencies to prepare them for peer review and share best practice from other providers on improving quality. In addition, we have produced a series of guides for improving performance across crime and civil areas, which are available on our website.
We will shortly be consulting upon our proposals for the introduction of best value tendering for criminal defence work. The consultation will cover the quality requirements for entry in the tendering process and plans for ongoing contract management.
Poor advice can be worse than no advice at all. We will only award contracts to firms that meet a strict quality threshold at peer review, which is backed by the Law Society and remains the preferred option for audit by all. No one need doubt that the commission wants to work in partnership with providers to ensure legal aid clients receive the high-quality services to which they are entitled.
Carolyn Regan, Chief Executive, Legal Services Commission, London
Sandra Dolly writes:
Independent Lawyer - July/August 2007 Issue - pages 8 & 9:
"Peer Reviewers are on the brink of revolt as they fear that the quality monitoring process has been 'hijacked' and that they are being 'used'".
DOH!
Is Peer Review beginning to fray at the edges. Remember where you heard it first.
On the back of the story below we received today a further Threshold Competent result from a disgruntled client, who was hoping for something higher. On the basis of the last two representations we have helped prepare the detail, scale and scope of the "Major Areas of Concern" would however, if consistently assessed, suggest a fail score. For our part, having seen the files in question, this is a fair although somewhat picky result.
We reported here on, to our knowledge, the first major JR challenge to a Peer Review outcome.
Karen Todner, of major London firm Kaim Todner, has kindly sent us her thoughts on this experience which she concludes as follows:
"Until problems like this are resolved the LSC should look very carefully at that what they have actually got for their money from the IALS because in my view it's not very much. And the profession should think very cautiously about co-operating with such a poorly thought out yet draconian scheme".
The full article is too big to post in its entirety but is well worth reading and can be downloaded here.
Before I head off for a day of Carter related discussion and planning, followed by an evening Peer Review training session, news of the latest PR result to come to our attention. It is a thoroughly well deserved Category 2, Competence Plus!
May we repeat our request for copies of reports for our library?
As promised to the London audience on Tuesday here is a link to our original story on the Quality Improvement Guides.
Happy reading.
As I sit down, somewhat gloomily and with an air of resignation, to write the latest Peer Review appeal some better news is breaking on this front. Seemingly the first major JR challenge to a Cat 4 result has resolved by way of the LSC chucking in the towel. My correspondent describes the spoiling tactics used by the LSC which ended in a decision that the result was "indefensible".
More here when I get it.
I return from my wanderings, and an excellent performance by these guys, to another Peer Review result. This one is a Cat 4. In case you have not got the drift of the process yet there is one quote which sums it up:
"Whilst the advocates achieved some good results, this was not supported on the whole by well prepared paperwork".
Further to this we received a fresh PR appeal yesterday. They are another firm who, with hindsight, wish they had not expressed an interest in the VHCC Panel and who now have a somewhat bigger problem to deal with.
On a first glance, and without the files to hand, the first thing that strikes me is the low number of "major areas of concern" on which the Cat 4 "below competence" outcome is based. There are just 6 of these . At my elbow are 5 threshold competent results with recorded MACs ranging between 6 and 12, only one Cat 3 has a single finding a this critical point in the report.
What is more I have 4, Cat 2 results containing MACs, which as such expressly excludes the recording of this outcome. As we have said before consistency, at least from where we are sitting, is not what is should be for such a fundamentally important assessment.
The latest Peer Review result, Threshold Competence, concurred with our assessment of the sample. It does however once again confirm our concerns about the (re)emergence of inconsistency. Most telling are that certain issues recorded as "other areas of concern" are clearly more significant than issues we have previously seen recorded as "major areas of concern" and leading to "below competence" outcomes. I can think of one firm in particular, who we assisted appeal, who will find this particularly galling.
It also confirms the very candid views of a recent Peer Reviewer who was a delegate on our last training tour. He was highly critical of the lack of training and ongoing monitoring involved in the operation of the scheme and expressed the view that he could not see how any appeal could fail to succeed. A representative of the firm above managed to put him right on this point at half time.
Prediction time - this will become a major recurring theme as the scheme "rolls out". We are trying to maintain, unfortunately retrospectively, a register of results so that these inconsistencies can be pointed out and/or utilised, comparatively, in appeals. We would be very grateful for any contributions to this archive and obviously these will be treated in the strictest confidence (unless you get excellent of course and want this publicising as widely as possible).
Last thing on Friday two further JRS clients reported Category 2, Competence Plus Criminal Peer Review outcomes. Well done both.
You might remember my first significant Peer Review appeal "victory". I have just seen the written response and despite achieving the desired re-grading I am still uneasy about some of their findings - anyhow time to let go now.
There is one interesting and important comment which stands out to me:
"The fact that this 'ticklist' approach may be SQM compliant does not make it acceptable for the purpose of peer review."
Here is something slightly more upbeat. The first clients with whom we've been working on a Peer Review improvement project have just had a live result. And it's (drum roll) Competence Plus - excellent!
Our congratulations to them!
As I type Joanna is labelling and taping up a large number of storage boxes shortly to wend their way home for their remaining 6 years of life in some storage facility. They are samples of Family and "Integrated Social Welfare Law" files we have been giving the once over for a Peer Review nervous firm.
The findings are not startling and the reports not dissimilar to most set of findings we make nowadays. Pro-activity, communication and advice recording remain the main concerns along with the practical need to overhaul standard letters and forms. The firm in question does now however face a live PR in the very near future if the LSC's timetables are implemented. The above will therefore have to be addressed double quick and despite this result reliance on appeals or 14 days of frantic burnishing is not the way forward.
Those wanting a similar check please form an orderly queue.
Regulars to this place and also our training events will know of my cynicism regarding Peer Review representations. These are not an appeal in any traditional sense involving paper only objections which are considered by the original reviewer and a senior panel member. To date out of the 10 or so we have prepared or advised upon only one was successful and that a move from Cat 3 (competent) to Cat 2 (competence plus). In that case it really only involved two files.
Today I am delighted to pass on the news that we have won our first Cat 4 (below competent) to Cat 3 appeal. I am not sure that they deserved the re-grading any more than the others we have represented, although the errors of fact were somewhat more glaring, but it a bit of an antidote to my cynicism. will have a quiet celebratory drink when I return from Yorkshire this evening.
The full set of timescales for "Quality Assessment Roll Out" (Peer Review to you and I) to facilitate Best Value Tendering (BVT) and Preferred Supplier have now been announced.
Best off are Social Welfare and Family providers in Harrow - they seemingly have until November 2009, at the earliest, to get PR standards right. Less lucky are those in the first phases which begin in a few short weeks time.
You can talk to us about Preferred Supplier and Peer Review and there will be sections on both subjects at these events. Places still available.
Further to this story the revised Mental Health "Improving your Quality" Guide is now published.
The changes, from an extremely quick read, relate to the frequency of visits to clients anticipated by the reviewers. Anything which looks like establishing firm benchmarks e.g. the controversial "5 visits" has been made considerably more vague. As ever comments can be made below
It is a particular pleasure to be able to bring you news of another Competent Plus Criminal Peer Review result. Not only is this an antidote for some of the more depressing news of the last week or so, but it is pleasing to us as the firm in question have now been clients of JRS for 10 years.
It is not that we would claim any credit for this outcome except to say they have always been a good law firm who have responded positively to any advice given.
I am doing some Peer Review training today for a smallish firm. We had to cancel the last planned day due to pressure of work at their end consequently it is some time since I did the review of their 20 files.
Having reviewed my notes of this assessment it is startling how similar the issues are to the appeal I have just concluded. (There are a couple of almost identical cases involving clients on the edge of the mental health system). The same Peer Reviewer would probably then have made a more damming overall assessment than I have.
That said there is nothing here which cannot be improved with a bit more focus and some new forms.
Way back when, I helped write my first set of (unsuccessful) representations regarding a Peer Review failure. I thought at the time this was a competent firm, getting good results for clients, which had been wrongly graded.
Yesterday the Senior Partner rang me to tell me that the latest result was Category 2 "Competence Plus".
So what has changed in the intervening position - certainly he has not had to go out and retrain as a CDS Lawyer. Rather they have improved how they demonstrate the quality of the job they do on paper i.e. form is as important as content. He and his team are the same lawyers now but better at showing it off.
This also gives clear hope to those now in the position these people were in at the end of 2005.
In the course of doing the job described below I idly glance at the "Independent Peer Reviewers Conflict of Interest Form" to check out new addittions to the panel. At the third row on the second page of the list I come across a new reviewer called "Dummy Data". I will be advising the firm to identify a conflict of interest here not least because you don't want your files reviewed by someone with that give away first name.
Andy is in the office with me today looking at another live PR sample.
Rather than another post about burnishing this sample brings the issue of initial instruction pro formas to mind.
Now this is a long running, if now something of a staged, debate at JRS. For those who have not heard me talk about it this previously I tend to take a devils advocate stance - anyone who cannot record initial instructions on blank paper should not be doing the job. Rather more sensibly the prevailing attitude is that an initial instructions aide memoir, in all categories, is a valuable tool.
This sample tests these viewpoints as it includes files begun both before and after our involvement with the firm. There are therefore files containing our standard PACE recording form and others with blank paper recording. Looking at these with "peer review glasses" on I have to say that the former are much easier to follow, and consequently grade. Both approaches do however require legible handwriting!
You can download the above from the sidebar.
I have just spoken with someone with a current "below competence" rating about becoming Peer Reviewer (having been personally canvassed by the LSC both before, and now despite, this finding). The conversation veered into controversial territory around the question - does becoming a reviewer represent "collaboration" with the enemy?
At one time, as a professional contrarian, I took a similar stance on membership of Cost Committees. I have subsequently revised this view and have not carried it forward into my assessment of PR. My caller, perhaps understandably takes the alternative viewpoint.
Given that in Focus 52 they are advertising for reviewers in 7 civil categories, perhaps now is the time for that very debate.
We had a discussion at one of my Peer Review sessions last week about the impact of individual file scores on the the final result. One contention was that a couple of bad scores can result in a bad overall outcome. Whilst we have witnessed this leading to Threshold Competent results (especially where Competent + was the desired result) we have not experienced the same with, say, Below Competence findings (of which we were notified of two last week).
This took place in a week in which some hand annotated notes were returned (accidentally) with the firms files. These involve a number being placed alongside each file. There are 6 - 1s, 5 - 2s, 6 - 3s and 3 - 4s we guess they represent individual file scoring ranging from 1 Excellent to 4 Below Competence.
Anyone like to guess the overall rating?
Will put up the answer later.
ANSWER
They got 2, Competent Plus
You might remember the issue discussed here though might have missed the discussion in the comments which followed.
We have just been informed of a PR result something of the reverse to one I mentioned in the comments. A firm with a Competent + Peer Reviewer notifies us of a Below Competent outcome. I draw no burnishing conclusions here however.
The tour bus (aka my car) has gone in for some necessary nurturing following the now complete trip around the UK. We had pretty much a home crowd yesterday at Leeds to finish off. One of the delegates we know reported a Competent + outcome to a recent VHCC instigated review which is encouraging.
As promised I re-post links to the Improving Quality guides. I will try and get them in a separate section on the side bar some time soon.
Here they are:
Debt and
The last two legs of the Autumn tour today and tomorrow and then a little bit of a breather (although plenty of in-house courses are lined up). Been pretty good so far, though I say it myself. The general mood is, as I have reported earlier less resigned than before and a little more combative. Everyone, but the powers that be, gets the central cost paradox in expecting casework to be done to a new higher threshold whilst at the same time "efficiency savings" are the name of the policy day.
Our direct work with firms on the issue is demonstrating that you do not necessarily need dramatic change to achieve PR improvement and that some simple redirection of focus can work wonders. I will post some more thoughts on this in December.
But for now it is to fill up the boot again and off down the road - Halifax tonight though I will go out with Andy and not Paddy Kenny.
The first date of the current Peer Review training tour was in Cardiff. Here I discussed how voluble the crowd was. In particular was the very strong assertion by some delegates that local firms were getting good results by comprehensively doctoring files before submission.
Now this is a topic we discuss regularly with firms and certainly it is neither something we advise nor do we think that practically much can be achieved if a file has chronologically irretrievable errors.
We are however now in possession of evidence which would seem to support the above contentions. Not that we will be changing our advice.
Another PR result came in on Friday. This was a further VHCC panel assessment and one we had a look at before it went away for review. Our view "threshold competent" was confirmed in the final result. Furthermore the comments made in the official feedback were very close to those we made. It confirms our view that we are getting quite close to an understanding of the metre being used by panel members.
The twist here however is that the firm also gained an informal view from a panel member which scored them a grade higher.
I will be shouting on the subject in Birmingham and London this week.
As I am training on Peer Review at the moment here are the five so far published guides to category specific compliance as promised to delegates in Cardiff on, now when was it, Wednesday. (Still no Family!)
Debt and
Interestingly subsequent to reading this story it appears that the MH version IS no longer on the LSC web site. The same story shows some further momentum in the professions favour regarding Carter - the MHLA people are pretty well organised you know.
We have had two PR results notified to us this week. Both are in the crime category one returning a "threshold competent" result the second "competence plus". There are no startling findings and both firms are happy with their respective results. From our point of view they seem pretty fair outcomes however once again we spot some technical inconsistencies and, in comparison to earlier outcomes, there appears to be a bit of "mellowing" in the final ratings.
One of the reports does however provide an important insight into an issue I'd rather not discuss "on air". If you are in the process of retrieving a sample from archive for this type of assessment give us a ring.
A couple of our CDS clients are piloting a Peer Review case planning form. Try it for yourself.
If you want a Word version so that you can amend it ring Joanna or Sandra on the number on the side bar.
During the last training tour I got to cover practical preparation for the post Carter world. Reluctantly I have introduced a short "management speak" section, not least because of our agreement with the authors of this report.
One topic involves creating a career ladder for staff, cross referenced to the need to get Police Station advice in house. Although this is a criminal example the same is true in civil categories where we have witnessed the equally successful development of support staff into capable fee earners.
Today, for the first time, I am looking at the work of someone who I first met as a junior secretary eight or nine years ago. In the context of preparing for a Peer Review Training session it is some of the best recorded PACE work I have seen for a very long time. It is an example which will be used to fill out the course content from here on in.
UPDATE
On the same sample of files I see a letter, to the neighbour of a remanded client, concerning the welfare of his dog. Fantastic client care. And here is a picture of one of my dogs.
As a request I am reposting this to the top of the site.
Whenever I shout (tutor a training session) nowadays I refer both to this place, with the resources available on the side bar, and to the Peer Review guidance available from the IALS. The latter has been pretty difficult to access here - by the way of finding an old archive story. This fact and phone requests for navigation assistance to the document suggest that consolidating this towards the top of the site makes some sense. So here, and to include the other available resources are the -
Mental Health and
guidance documents.
Happy reading.
Whenever I shout (tutor a training session) nowadays I refer both to this place, with the resources available on the side bar, and to the Peer Review guidance available from the IALS. The latter has been pretty difficult to access here - by the way of finding an old archive story. This fact and phone requests for navigation assistance to the document suggest that consolidating this towards the top of the site makes some sense. So here, and to include the other available resources are the -
Mental Health and
guidance documents.
Happy reading.
The latest two PR results in confirm the difficulty of achieving a Cat. 2 "competence plus" outcome. Both come in a grade lower "threshold competence", which while sufficient for the current VHCC panel development are not enough to become an actual reviewer.
More reps to write then.
UPDATE
We hear about a further putative Peer Reviewer who fails at the final hurdle. It's now three in the last week.
I have expressed my pessimism about the chances of making successful Peer Review representations before. I've just had a call saying that our most recent appeal (and strongest to date) has failed. I have taken to reading out some of the findings which are deemed "major areas of concern", to training delegates. Generally to incredulity.
They now walk a 6-9 month tightrope before a second and final assessment.
Just to cheer people further our latest Immigration CCA appeal has only moved 6% on review and will now require a Cost Committee hearing. (The savings on extrapolation are significant however).
I feel much more like this than this.
It is a thoroughly Peer Review day here today. Andy and I are testing our consistency in arriving at categorisations and later I am off to talk to a North East firm about helping them confront this new assessment process. In the background I can hear Sandra talking to people about live file requests and the growing hysteria this is creating in certain practices.
I have also just received the latest Costs Law Reports publication which contains at least one interesting judgement relating to legal aid work which I will do a more detailed post in the near future (ASBOs and sentencing hearings in the Crown Court). If you can't wait give me a ring.
I now have sight of the letter sent to those firms in line for a "priority" Criminal Peer Review. These firms have recently undertaken a VHCC under contract and therefore might reasonably be expected to "express interest" in membership of the new panel.
Carter is somewhat unclear about the final PR categorisation, the LSC less so. In this correspondence it talks of "when a 2 becomes the minimum requirements (sic), as the preferred supplier initiative is rolled out".
Between now and April 07 a 3 (threshold competent) is acceptable however you will have to wait until 2 becomes the necessary score before you can appeal - or rather make "representations".
It also confirms that there will be "2 peer reviews available in the preferred supplier scheme". So two bites at the cherry to get to Competence Plus.
If you are in the potential priority population but have yet to receive a file request do not worry this is to be undertaken with "no significance in the order in which suppliers are selected". Requests will be made on a "rolling basis over the coming months".
Use this time wisely.
As anticipated here PR requests are hitting desks and consequently phone calls are coming through to JRS world.
The prospect of this new type of assessment does of course lead to a great deal of anxiety not least because it is effectively retrospective. There is also little one can do in the short period allowed to drag the files from archive, blow the dust off and DX them to the LSC.
Longer term there are a couple of things:
First you must have a good read of this.
Two, if you've not had one, give the office a ring for a brochure explaining our PR development service.
Finger crossing does not seem to work however.
Yesterday I got embroiled in business technicalities, banks, accountants, cars and the like. All the stuff I hate and know most of you do too. This has left me effectively a day behind this week, with a couple of deadlines looming.
The one interesting call of the day so far, not that enhancement and other CDS queries are not, is that the LSC are fishing for criminal suppliers to volunteer for early Peer Review. My caller is an SFP member and it might be that that is the angle here however it seems clear that wheels are in motion.
Any other examples will be gratefully received and reported.
UPDATE
All firms who have undertaken a VHCC in the last few years are to get this invite (some 400) firms and the acceptable standard will be 3 - threshold competent
- for now!!
HAT TIP
The two Andrews.
News reaches us of a client firm being alerted, over the phone by an account manager, of an incoming bombshell. This, they were warned, would come in the form of a wrongly sent notification of a Category 4, "below competence" PR result. One imagines they have also dispatched the duty first aider in case this correspondence gets into the hands of an older partner with a dodgy ticker!
BTW our "Facing up to Peer Review" support and development package is being launched in the next few days. If you want an early copy of the brochure (which is electronically too big to link to here) just get in touch.
I've been told that this post is a bit obscure. To be clear we are running the Peer Review course again, by request, on Humberside and here are the details.
We intend to offer a more thoroughgoing PR development service for individual firms in the very near future. If you want advanced information give us a ring.
I currently eagerly await the arrival of a pile of failed Peer Review files. Despite my creeping pessimism about the chances of making successful representations I am keen to get this job moving given an impending deadline, two days hols Thursday and Friday plus a busy week next week.
I have seen the report but not the files and it contains many similarities to previous negative outcomes especially advice recording in the Police Station. Unfortunately this - the only practical guide on the scheme by its creators - doesn't cover PACE.
More news on Peer Review next week.
I have expressed my thought on training course evaluation sheets before. That said the individual written comments, rather than the tick box marking, from Tuesday confirm my (very modest) view that "Peer Review" is a good course. What is more, good or bad, it seems to be pretty much out there on its own.
With that in mind we now have a proposed date, Wednesday 19th July, for a return to Hull. We have a couple of firms "promoting" us by hosting the course and selling tickets locally - thus getting their CPD points for free. To quote the Boss "This guns for hire".
Another notification of a "below competent" Criminal Peer Review outcome to take the shine of what had been a good day so far. It is also, in my view, another perfectly competent practice with a great local reputation.
With this in mind three points
ONE
Preferred Supplier and Peer Review Training
LONDON - Tuesday 13th June
Mostyn Hotel, Marble Arch
TWO
If there is enough interest we will re run either course for those who missed it first time round. A no obligation statement of interest to Sandra would help.
THREE
Tomorrow I am again doing the in-house version of PR. This involves the morning with my nose in files and then using this for content to personalise the course in the afternoon. Currently selling well so book early.
Finally do not be complacent this is serious and scary.
In November I started out on our first Peer Review "appeal" (actually its not an appeal in any from you would recognise and is rather the presentation of written representations).
Between now and then we have achieved something of a technical victory regarding the process and the findings are essentially "void".
Now, mid May 2006, we have verbally been informed that our representations have been unsuccessful, we await the detailed decision.
When we won the technical decision I predicted to the client that we would not be successful with the substantive arguments. So it seems. I have to say that this leaves me depressed as to future prospects of success in the reps. process and that the key is to get the right categorisation in the first place.
The inactivity here of late has been due to me being on the road again doing in-house versions of the "Peer Review" course. Our final immigration CCA appeal hearing tomorrow and Andy and my annual partnership review next week will also mean lean postings in the near future.
Any how according to the site stats quite a few of you have now found the IALS crime guidance linked to below in my absence.
The last two days have seen me doing the same day at two different (very) good criminal firms. This involves a lay review of some files in the morning followed by a personalised version of the course in the afternoon. Having so reviewed a number of firms files now I am slowly coming round to accepting the value of this form of assessment - though not perhaps for the same reasons as the IALS.
It seems clear that whilst one only gets a partial view of "quality" (especially in crime where advocacy is so critical to such an assessment) you certainly over a sample of files get a feel for the quality, approach and ethos of the firm. Most strikingly you get a feel of the effectiveness of supervision in both the SQM and wider sense. It is also not hard to identify significant difference between firms - equivalent to the PR scoring scale with the formal process "objectifying" these gradations via the involvement of peers and the IALS.
The last two days have also made me revisit (though not totally discount) the argument which runs "you can't do competent plus casework on current rates".
I blame coming back from holidays, a dose of Cairo belly and then having to shout at 80 delegates for 10 hours, but try as I might I could not find this document the other day.
It is a new guide to Crime PR compliance from the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies prefaced by Prof. Avrom Sherr. It should not just be a must for criminal practitioners but is worth a read by civil lawyers - to get a feel for the standards being set and for pointers as to file preparation all round.
We hope to make a short aide memoir for quick reference in the near future.
A return to a "popular" subject as again I'm shouting at an (un)lucky bunch of lawyers this pm. Before that though I am having a long look at some of their files to give me a bit of ammo for the afternoon session.
This is becoming an increasing part of our work and so our team had a consistency day on Tuesday, rotating files and comparing views. We aren't too far off however we notice that we have individual nuances in our approach and in the detail of some of the conclusions. As we have said before though this type of assessment is fundamentally different to all others. Although SQM issues do impact on the process and one can never quite ignore contract compliance issues, judging, and scoring files on the basis of the quality of the job done is a very different beast. It is also a skill that supervisors must develop not least properly to undertake file reveiw.
Finally check the date of the linked post above - July 2005. It has taken nearly a year for most firms to wake up to this if you haven't yet - WAKEY WAKEY!
Once again you will have to get your snail mail copy of the Gazette out of its plastic bag to read the lead story. (As ever their web site only has last weeks headlines).
This weeks issue leads with "Solicitors hit out at LSC supplier scheme". It summarises some of LAPGs initial response plus quotes Stephen Hewitt of Fisher Meredith who, hitherto, has been a keen proponent of the scheme having taken his firm through the pilot. Much of this you know if you have read the posts below.
Most interesting however are the final two paragraphs which veer off into Peer Review and quote the motion to be put before Law Society Council next week. It is one which concurs with our own views:
"peer review for legal aid practitioners is no longer supportable in the absence of any increase in rates of publicly funded criminal defence work"
And to evidence this are the review results I have in front of me today. 10 bullet points, only one extending to a substantive paragraph, on one side of A4 to tell an over 20 year experienced lawyer that he is "below competent".
Mandate you regional LS Council rep today.
UPDATE
Belated Link to the Gazette Story
It is Peer Review all ways round today. Whilst writing the above post (I know its a bit about face but I want that one, not this, as the top entry) I get a call from a appellant eager to support the above motion and two London lawyers intending to apply for the panel tomorrow. Along side me I have the new appeal mentioned yesterday and a further application to vet on the Mac.
In never rains .....
N.B. We are training on this subject and Preferred Supplier in London on June 13th.
10 months and a ton and a half entries later this blog has become a central part of JRS family life. Blogging is of course a wider phenomenon with various different varieties in existence - politics, sport, music and even sex (or so I am told).
This is I suppose a "business" blog. It was partly inspired by the political blogs I read and have contributed too, such as Harry's Place and partly by a mate of Harry's I met in London who runs this one for his sheet metal business.
We obviously use it to try and improve communication with clients and the profession in general. The political, and other, blogs tend to involve people with an opinion to propagate often with journalistic or writing pretensions. The good ones stand out, the less good tend to involve a "listen to me, me me" level of desperation.
That said I have to express a concern that I am heading in a similar direction over Peer Review. This site seems increasingly obsessed with the subject and every conversation I have with lawyers tends to lead in this direction. One Managing Partner I spoke to yesterday agreed that having begun using our new File Review forms has dramatically altered his perception of his firm's work and its general quality. He also commented on how this development had nearly completely passed him by. It is an observation with which we concurs.
So at the risk of sounding completely self absorbed - listen to me - Peer Review is very, very important.
A busy morning so far involving holiday jabs and physiotherapy and now I'm helping with a Peer Review application.
By coincidence this applicant is the same number of years PQE as someone I met last weeks who had recently been turned down by the LSC. The reason? She had only worked for one firm since being admitted and the person specification prefers applicants who have worked for a number of firms.
So let me get this straight, long years of continuous service with one firm bad, hopping between a few firms and never settling down good.
This looks like another failure then.
Peer Review is quickly becoming the issue of the month this trend continuing with my viewing of a second "Below Competent" outcome. The files, in a civil category, seem perfectly competent to me.
It seems worth briefly commenting upon three themes this reveiw has in common with this case.
The "feel" of the negative comments in both was that the reviewer worked in an entirely different jurisdiction and context.
The degree of recording and communication sought, especially of advice, implies a counsel of perfection. This also seems completely contradictory to the explicit PR requirement of tailoring communication to the needs of the client and their ability to comprehend this. The lengths this latter reviewer required involved a number of highly "academic" issues practically immaterial to the real issues in the case. There also seems a denial that there is a continuum of practice in which there will be genuine and acceptable approaches adopted by different lawyers.
The use of generic client care letters (especially those which have slipped slightly out of date) is seriously frowned upon.
The other factor which struck me was that these were highly subjective, unnecessarily aggressive assessments. Lets hope that as these cases are monitored a more realistic standard emerges.
I trained on Peer Review yesterday and both Andy and I did mini PR checks on some clients files. Usually we whiz thorough a sample of files spotting the SQM or CCA issues with the speed and trained eyes you would expect of people of our age and experience
This however is a very different way of looking at files and even though neither of us are qualified to comment on most issues of substantive law you can make some interesting conclusions. Obviously being given the brief to "do your worst" helps even so it is also easy to understand how defensive people get when it is their files under scrutiny. Nonetheless becoming hypercritical of file management, recording and client care will become an essential new skill of the file reviewer.
Those who have frequented our training courses in recent years will have heard me speak on the subject of making legal aid profitable and the tension faced by craft lawyers forced to become came managers. Yesterdays firm have been working to a similar LSC derived motto - you can't provide a Rolls Royce service in a Ford Cortina scheme. Now it seems one at least has to try.
File Review is not coming it is here.
You run a case, cradle to grave, advising throughout. Prepare it for Crown Court trial and achieve an acquittal.
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being excellent 5 being "Failure in Performance" how would you rate that case?
Update
Using the same scale as above how would you rate the sending of a close of case letter 5 working days after the final hearing in the case.
Fog stopped play. Or at least it stopped me taking my flight yesterday evening leaving me a "free" day.
I will therefore focus my attention on a Peer Review appeal (or representations as they are called). Having scanned the final report, in the absence of the files, I have to say it seems to set the bar very high, especially regarding PACE recording and the use of standard letters.
Posts here last week did inspire some phone calls and this was a common thread. One hopes that there is an understanding that it will take some time to establish some consistent results and an appropriate National Benchmark.