I don’t want to do CLA 54 to death, in comparison to last years shambles and the current uncertainty regarding the future of the scheme, this is obviously only small beer. This does however seem like an appropriate point to make some more substantive comment. I have also talked about little else since Wednesday afternoon and this may help frame future conversations. I don’t intend to clog up visual space here doing so, you will have to click on the “continue reading” link to get the full article.
It will come as little surprise to most of us that, on the first occasion the “second meeting” rule was properly considered, the ludicrous “face-to-face” construction placed upon it by the LSC, was rejected. Indeed this is perhaps the least contentious of a number of similar areas of contractual dispute which populate the current Financial Stewardship exercises.

We did a significant amount of training, as did the LSC, in the Autumn of 2007. Main topic, the October the replacement of the Tailored Fixed Fee scheme with the current arrangements. Dean, now of course wearing JRS colours, did some of the LSC sessions in the North East and has a sharp recollection of their “fitness for purpose”.

My firm recollection of the private law fixed fee training is that our message about Level 2 fees was lacking in clarity and most certainly differs from that which the LSC now relies on in Financial Stewardship audits. The profession were at pains to find out the threshold for moving from Level 1 to Level 2 and there were questions at both events on this subject. The issue of there being a requirement for a second attendance, whether face-to-face or otherwise, was categorically

About Author: SP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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