More from the LAPG:
The Legal Aid Practitioners Group today accused the Ministry of Justice of
LAPG comment on the family paper issued by the LSC on Friday:
Director Richard Miller said, “The revised family proposals show clear signs of the LSC having listened to the profession’s concerns. The willingness to defer introduction of the private law proposals for work after the issue of proceedings, in order to have further discussions with us, is very welcome. Other smaller changes are also appreciated, such as the agreement to pay the full fee even if the client is not involved for the whole case, and to allow for exceptional cases at level 1 where a divorce petition is involved. All in all, while we still have concerns about the level of these fees, and about the extent to which fixed fees will work at all in this field, the current proposals should avoid serious meltdown in October.”
Steve Barnes writes:
I was told yesterday that someone responsible for the Court Duty allocation for a town in West Yorkshire forgot to allocate anyone for Saturday Court; his rather blase response to the understandable queries raised was to say that if any firms are interested he would take the solictor’s details and “draw lots out of a hat” – same approach as was once taken for CCA samples – do the people involved have a stake in the local milliners?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT RICHARD MILLER 020 7960 6068
LONDON 03/04/2007
LAPG CONDEMNS
Marcel Berlins gives his take on the situation facing entry to the Bar here.
Whilst on the training trail practitioner discontent is something of an occupational hazard. Yesterday I spoke to a number of people both unhappy generally and also bemoaning the fact they are “trapped” in the publicly funded scheme rather than doing more lucrative private client work.
As our friends at the LAPG point out we now have a new Chief Executive who needs to hear these concerns more than I do – especially those in the “fragile” parts of the market and are considering and escape route. For our part we will be happy to forward any such comments for those not wishing to do so direct.
I tend to try and avoid politics on this blog but Gavin over here picks up on the recent “rebalancing” of the criminal justice system debate in two separate posts.
As Mrs Merton might say, “lets have a heated debate”.
The Law Society seem to have got their response to the Preferred Supplier Scheme about right.
They too spot the drift away from “low up-front entry criteria” implied by an increase in remote monitoring, Peer Review and file assessment. They also, again concurring with our experience, describe the last two elements as not yet being “sufficiently refined”.
Problems with Relationship Mangers and the age old issue of schemes like this resulting in “spending more, rather less, unremunerated time meeting the LSC’s requirements” are also covered.
Where we diverge are Devolved Powers. Most of the feedback we’ve received is the opposite – we would rather they made speedy grants of certificates and we faced less paperwork and the risk of retrospective sanction.
That aside sensible, measured analysis which will probably achieve little practical amendment to the proposals.
Just mentioned Carter below when this press release arrives from the Association of Major London Criminal Firms.
See what you think.
“The Association of Major London Criminal Law Firms welcomes the
publication of Lord Carter’s report on the procurement of Criminal Legal
Defence Services and accepts the analysis that the system is in need of
wholesale reform. The Association supports the restructuring of the
supplier base but remains to be convinced that price competitive
tendering is the best method by which to secure best value. A Better
recognition of the costs drivers that remain outside the influence of
criminal law suppliers would be welcomed. The Associations members
believe that the report represents an interesting challenge and propose
to constructively engage with the Review Team to shape a reformed system
for the delivery of high quality Criminal Defence Services.”
To me the key paradox remains; Carter’s proposals are described as market-based reforms and yet we already have a functioning market. There are some problems with it here and there and perhaps some (minor) areas where savings could be made.
It is also, unless anyone can contradict me, the most regulated professional market in the UK. Despite this you can earn, by significant multiplication factors, far more on private client work without, SQM, GCC, Peer Review, additional accreditation, punitive cost audits, Preferred Supplier and regular night shifts.
Yet many continue to be in the CDS.
There are far too many criticisms to level at the proposals here so I’ll limit it for now. The plans are predicated on the notion of “economy of scale” and that “big is beautiful”. I would not say that this is never so however our experience tells us that on occasion it is. By contrast it seems pretty clear to me that the experienced criminal sole practitioner is often a pretty economic unit providing good value for money.
Tell me if I’m wrong.
