Andy spent some time with a client firm yesterday where there was a bit of concern that notional costs on PACE standard fee claims were dipping below the fee paid. Not a problem in and of itself under the CDS specification. There is even an argument that this demonstrates good, modern efficient practice – which is what the LSC claim to want. There is however the commonly expressed concern here that should this occur across the board the Commissions next step will be to reduce the standard fee.
On a closer look however it was immediately apparent that one reason for this was that the firm have stopped including CDS 1 & 2 costs especially in bail back matters when these amounted to more than the odd phone call or letter. The reason for this
is simply that they have taken the decision that completing these forms is now largely a waste of time under the new scheme.
The SF was calculated as an inclusive one based on the historical costs of advising during an investigation. The notional cost the LSC are now receiving by way of CDS 6 returns may however not be a reasonable comparator.
Good point well made- another pertinent point is that fact that travel costs do not need to be reported on the CDS6, and so overall averages that may at first appear to be reduced in an exagerated fashion, have in fact not reduced as much at all; I think that despite the fact that the requirement has gone, it is advisable for firms to include travel costs too, so as to be able to monitor this effectively….
People are doing a similar thing in mental health. Instead of resurrecting a file they are doing additional work pro bono. Instead of keeping a file open for months after a Tribunal, they are billing it in order to pay experts, then doing the rest of the work pro bono.
People are doing a similar thing in mental health. Instead of resurrecting a file they are doing additional work pro bono. Instead of keeping a file open for months after a Tribunal, they are billing it in order to pay experts, then doing the rest of the work pro bono.