Air Strike

There are often suspicions one cannot confirm in this game. I am generally more of a cock-up than conspiracy theorist in matters of relations with the LSC. That said we have obviously experienced occasions where client firms have clearly been treated punitively, out of spite on the part of, say, an Account Manager, because of another ongoing dispute.
We have many such situations at present, as friction on all levels, micro to macro, is as bad as it ever has been. Firms usually adopt a “head down” approach and seek to minimise conflict but this is unavoidable. This is an approach with which we usually concur. This is wise as some of the current crop of RMs DO NOT understand the concept of a “legitimate dispute”, especially regarding costs issues. (I blame the demise of the Cost Committee for this which visibly legitimised such disagreements).
Obviously any concept of “RM Infallibility” on costs or contract interpretation is fatally flawed. However some fail to grasp that disagreement about such issues has been, legitimately, central to the life of the fund for many a year.
So when a clash of this type occurs, and the firm refuses to lie down, then suddenly a highly uncommon Peer Review request follows, do you put this down to chance or commission? If this had happened once I’d say the former but 3 times?
It is nice however when this returns a Competence Plus result however.

About Author: SP

One comment on “Air Strike

  • As you know, I had a running dispute with LSC over at least 3 years about the allocation of duty slots in Manchester. Until I left Manchester I would not have been confident enough to post about this but when I started to complain, I and all my staff were suddenly allocated court duty slots on Saturday mornings.
    I complained about this and was verbally told that I would be given additional slots to compensate. When I did not get the slots, guess what – all my next slots were on Saturday morning.
    I asked for an internal review but was told that this was not applicable as it was only available if the LSC imposed contract penalties that I did not agree with.
    Why am I posting this now? Because I no longer have my own firm and consequently am virtually fireproof.
    The LSC is not fit for purpose, The staff that work for the `LSC have no proper understanding of the obligations and duties that the contract imposes on the LSC. As far as they are concerned all the obligations and duties fall on the supplier.
    The criminal contract has destroyed proper legal services for criminal clients.
    All we suppliers seek to do is provide proper and effective defence to our clients. We can no longer do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *