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 Carter Family
Share
About Author: SP
Have you looked at the figures for care in the LSC proposals; they quote 3 sets of figures, London, Non London and National, at present (and I’ve just looked at the LSC’s site to see if they have updated these figures) the National level of fees for the 3 stages are lower than both of the London and Non London figures. If the figures for these three proposals were formulated from the same sets of data, I would have expected the National rate to have been in between the London and Non London rates, rather than lower. Or am I missing something?
Plus a Link to results of Law Society survey of civil legal aid practitioners on LSC’s proposals.
PS I’m talking (posting) about Level 3 – Full Representation, as for Level 1 and 2 the National figures are higher or the same the Non London figures.
Don’t have the numbers to hand to confirm but I take the point you are making.