Thanks to Andrew for the update, in the comment box, to Fridays last post. Here is a link to the version on the Law Society’s own site. Here is the final paragraph:

“We still have the utmost concern over the ability of many professionals to deliver a proper professional service for the fees on offer under this contract. We will be providing more detailed advice by 23 October. Our advice remains, as it was when the contract was first sent out, that if you do not believe you can deliver a proper professional service for the fees on offer, then you need seriously to consider whether you should sign this contract”.

I had a number of Autorecbot related discussions yesterday. The full Kafkaesque nature of these conversations would take too long to relate here. My initial conclusion – complete LSC confusion; what they are saying nationally to your representative bodies is either being disregarded locally or has not been properly communicated to them. Or alternatively the head office team are not being completely frank.
Given the inconsistency of approach between Regional Offices it may well be as a result of the former. If this is the case a straightforward 1 side of A4 statement on how contract reconciliation is to be managed would not be difficult, and would avoid the friction and waste of resource these “negotiations” create and consume. I do however have a sneaking suspicion that the lack of such clarity belies the real policy – “see what you can get away with regardless of the rules”. Consequently firms who, under General Criminal Contract Standard Terms Part C 12B 3 and CDS Monthly Payment Rules 1.1.8 (c) who should not have their SMP reduced, rather increased, have been pressured to accept a lower payment.
Whilst the confusion over the new 6-month contract does not help this should still be possible – how about this for a start:
We will not reduce standard monthly payments unless, on a current contract year or rolling 12 month basis, you are 10% overpaid.
Oh that’s what General Criminal Contract Standard Terms Part C 12B 3 already says, and it is not amended in the proposed January version.
Forward projections should allow for the 7.5% “positive balance” identified in the Monthly Payment Rules.
I don’t know if this is proposed for amendment in January, certain ROs statements imply that this is the case, however it is the clearest and most importantly the currently applicable guidance. It also actually makes sense. (It was part of marketing package used to entice signature to the original GCC to boot).
So what is the plea indicated in the title? -
Could we have a definitive statement from the LSC on this point? We know that these communications are received onboard the Deathstar, come on guys help us out.
Or am I correct above in that the real unspoken policy is to drive down payments to firms by any means available and that a fair and consistent (and lawful) approach is not therefore desirable?

Whilst we await the Law Society guidance on CDS contract signature a number of aspirant new firms have been in touch for a bit of advice from us.
There are I think 2 things to say. Firstly await the above mentioned LS guidance however there will be a point, who knows when, where new entrants will have the chance to sign on the dotted line. Secondly if you want our assistance – franchise applications etc. then the sooner you get in the queue the better – do however anticipate some robust advice on the topic!

This news report from Criminal Solicitor Dot Net is of interest – not least that there might be some clear guidance on CDS Contract signature by close of play today.
The last sentence looks on face value to be portentous!
Check back in later and we will provide an update.

The litigators fee has been published. You can download it here.
I will be training on the subject (and others) in November with TMT.
Not sure about the phrase “successful Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme” though!
Another weekend involving reading. Maybe I’ll just walk the dogs and watch the rugby.
UPDATE
This is not a particularly helpful document there is not a clear explanation as to the practicalities and one has to refer back to the original Appendix 4.6 of Carter. There are no worked examples either. The one potentially useful item, the LGF Calculator is very misleading as to how certain fees are arrived at (although the final numbers do work out).

The first foray in this conflict, a battle of Press Releases, has begun. The Law Society’s opened up with this one from which the following seems the most significant extract:

“The Society asked the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for a draft of the contract it would be inviting firms to sign, and to meet with the Society and the other representative groups to discuss the terms. The LSC rejected that reasonable request, and has chosen instead to send the contract direct to firms without any discussion”.

The LSC’s entirely predictable rebuttal now follows.
We have commented previously on the LSC implicitly blaming the Law Society for the current pass rather than reflecting upon their own responsibility in this regard.
Once more we are left pondering how a Peer Reviewer would rate legal advice to sign this contract in these circumstances?

I waited all Friday for news on the process for gaining a new 6 month CDS contract in January. It turned up a bit too late to post so I saved it for this morning.
The long and short of it is that you will not need to express an interest or “tender” for a contract rather you have, in effect, up to 4pm on Wednesday 31st October, to sign up to the new contract. This will be followed up by the submission of your numbers of employed Duty Solicitors by the end of November. The new contract, involving Duty rotas based upon the above, will begin on January 14th 2008 with a further contract round in July and ultimately Best Value Tendering to follow.
There will be, we believe, no consultation or negotiation. Stay tuned in for further information.

The LAPG’s comments on last weeks announcements:

LAPG welcomes the postponement of the criminal proposals. Hopefully this will allow the LSC to fully reflect upon the impact of imposing such a large number of changes simultaneously and the potential damage that is likely to be caused too many practices and the resultant effect upon quality and availability of services for clients. Any business will find it difficult to tolerate and survive so many changes to an already frail structure.

Further to our report on the CDS Contract Bombshell comes further information on the way ahead from here.
Perhaps of most import in this document is the indication that new contracts will be available to all including new entrants i.e. the current moratorium comes to an end.
The CLSA’s take on events is here.
HAT TIP
Andrew Keogh
Crimeline

Here are the LAPGs views of the latest CDS Direct proposals:

The LSC has today announced that it intends to proceed with a scheme whereby all requests for advice in the police station will be directed via the Duty Solicitor Call Centre, even where the client has requested their own solicitor, and in less serious cases, the only advice given will be telephone advice from the centralised telephone service CDS Direct.
LAPG Director Richard Miller said, “This change will confuse vulnerable clients into forgoing legal advice in the police station, which may well lead to more miscarriages of justice. We do not see how this proposal can save anyone’s time or money. It replaces a single phone call from the police to the solicitor with a complex procedure that will involve numerous calls at the LSC’s expense.
“Diverting clients to CDS Direct when they have asked for their own solicitor does not make sense from a purely human perspective. Where a solicitor has an established relationship with the client, the solicitor may well be able to persuade the client to accept the situation and co-operate as necessary. Conversely, a telephone call from a complete stranger may well merely generate a stream of invective and a refusal to
co-operate. We therefore believe that the police will be significantly disadvantaged by this scheme as well.
“All in all, we believe there are many good reasons for not going ahead, and none for going ahead.”