Share |
This year was an awful year for family legal aid solicitors and for others who had to "bid" for work. Some firms took the view that there was no point and pulled out of legal aid altogether. Others took an opportunity to bid speculatively for work in areas that they had not previously had a presence. This course of action resulted in firms established in certain geographic areas not being awarded contracts because of the might of "incomers". Those incomers then advertised for people to work for them and had to find premises.
Some companies are used to bidding for contracts with local Government and with central Government. The process adopted by teh LSC was cumbersome and didn't work very well. It is based upon the idea that catually those entitled to legal aid are 2customers" and the LSC is a commissioning body. The problem with the tender process is that the LSC cannot guarantee volume nor-as happened with family-can the LSC guarantee that Government policy wont adversely affcet the numbers of potential clients ( egthrough changes to eligibility).
The Legal Services Commission had published the criteria so late in the day that many firms were left floudering when it came to the bidding process. It was clear that Emmersons Solicitors did not meet the criteria that had been set but published only two months ahead of bidding. We had only one Family Panel member. Why? Because there had not been nor was there any need to be a member of a panel other than to fulfill supervision requirements. There was no need for all Solicitors to be on a panel. There was no advantage to us or to the clients in having all Solicitors on a panel.
Following the initial bidding process we were told we had not been awarded a contract. Other firms in Sunderland were in a similar position.
Initially I did not care. It was a relief to be shot of the legal aid contract. It is not remunerative. It involves a lot of bureaucracy and interference from the LSC.
However I eventually got angry enough to threaten Judicial Review proceedings. I got angry because of the performance of Hugh Barrett on BBC News
The LSC maintained then and maintains now that the criteria were well known-they were not. That they were sensible and that the LSC could rely upon them-they are not nor should the LSC rely upon them. Also the LSC maintained that actually the cull of Solicitors' firms offering legal aid was NOT a bad thing and was a good thing as it maintained client choice.
I did some research. The LSC were well aware in June 2009 through the Quality Working Group that there was no evidence that accreditation was an indicator of quality. No detailed research had been undertaken on this point. So why did they use accreditation as a bid criteria? To get rid of firms.
Thankfully the Law Society undertook and succeeded in a Judicial Review, in which the LSC were heavily criticised.
The real problem is that the LSC has created a bureaucratic web that makes administering legal aid expensive. The blame for this rests with the lSC. To control costs the LSC has decided to reduce the number of Solicitors and others who provide publicly-funded advice. The LSC sets quality standards, audits files and firms, spends ages looking at how claims have been submitted. The LSC fails to recognise that it is this bureaucracy that needs to be addressed. If the systems of claiming-what is inevitably a fixed fee-were simpler and if there was no auditing by the LSC then costs would be reduced dramatically.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority regulates Solicitors. The SRA are responsible for quality. There is no need for the LSC to get involved in that.
There is no need for auditing IF a proper, simple payment regime can be created.
The LSC needs to look at how legal aid is administered and change its philosophy.
The LSC is under pressure. For the second year the National Audit Office would not sign off the LSC's accounts. Apparently too much money was paid to Solicitors. Why? The payment sytem is disproportionately complicated when compared to the fee per case. Of course the LSC was quick to blame Solicitors.
In 2011 it would be very nice if the MoJ and LSC stopped telling me and other Solicitors why we need to do it their way and instead talked to us about how to make the system better.
The SRA wishes to introduce Outcome Focused Regulation. The main reason for this appears to be that it will make things easier for me and will be really good. The truth is that it makes it easier for the SRA to be the Regulator of ABS's (Alternative Business Structures). OFR is unnecessary and will create chaos and disaster for clients and for Solicitors. It makes no sense. The SRA did not ask the profession if we wanted OFR. We were told it was coming and we have been consulted on delivery not principle. It is a pointless waste of time and effort.
In 2011 it would be nice if the SRA listened to what Solicitors are saying and stopped telling us how good OFR is going to be for us.
The Ministry of Justice wishes to reform sentencing and punishment. It wishes to reform a lot of the justice systems and impose upon those who are publicly funded a requirements to use mediation to resolve divorce issues. It is with such contempt that those who receive legal aid are held that they are told what system of justice best suits them. They have no choice-unless they meet certain criteria or are prepared to pay privately.
There has been a lot of criticism this year by Judges about legislation, the Family Courts massacre and on legal issues such as enforced mediation. The MoJ, rather like Labour, does not wish to hear from dissenters. Those who oppose do so for reasons of self interest.
The MoJ and LSC know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
In 2011 it would be nice if the Government reviewed how the justice systems operate, how they are funded and how access to those systems is funded.
My guess is that a lot of what the MoJ and Government in general proposes for Justice will not see the light of day. Towards the end of 2011 there is to be a further competitive tendering process for criminal contracts. My hope is that the ConDems realise that they meddle too much in legal aid provision and that a thorough, open and honest review is required. Competiive price Tendering is unnecessary.
I hope that the LSC/MoJ will release the research to justify the oft-made claim that England and Wales spends more per capita than any other country. One wonders if this statistic is as accurate as the data gathered on WMD in Iraq?
In 2011 I hope that the LSC/MoJ adopts an honest approach to how it conducts the "reform" of legal aid instead of lying at every cut and turn about what it aims to do and why what has been done has been done. Lying may be a strong word-but it accurately describes how the top executives of the LSC and how the civil servants in the MoJ pronounce on legal aid reform. If you watch the performance of the LSC before the Justice Committee you will see what I mean.
This year was an awful year for family legal aid solicitors and for others who had to "bid" for work. Some firms took the view that there was no point and pulled out of legal aid altogether. Others took an opportunity to bid speculatively for work in areas that they had not previously had a presence. This course of action resulted in firms established in certain geographic areas not being awarded contracts because of the might of "incomers". Those incomers then advertised for people to work for them and had to find premises.
Some companies are used to bidding for contracts with local Government and with central Government. The process adopted by teh LSC was cumbersome and didn't work very well. It is based upon the idea that catually those entitled to legal aid are 2customers" and the LSC is a commissioning body. The problem with the tender process is that the LSC cannot guarantee volume nor-as happened with family-can the LSC guarantee that Government policy wont adversely affcet the numbers of potential clients ( egthrough changes to eligibility).
The Legal Services Commission had published the criteria so late in the day that many firms were left floudering when it came to the bidding process. It was clear that Emmersons Solicitors did not meet the criteria that had been set but published only two months ahead of bidding. We had only one Family Panel member. Why? Because there had not been nor was there any need to be a member of a panel other than to fulfill supervision requirements. There was no need for all Solicitors to be on a panel. There was no advantage to us or to the clients in having all Solicitors on a panel.
Following the initial bidding process we were told we had not been awarded a contract. Other firms in Sunderland were in a similar position.
Initially I did not care. It was a relief to be shot of the legal aid contract. It is not remunerative. It involves a lot of bureaucracy and interference from the LSC.
However I eventually got angry enough to threaten Judicial Review proceedings. I got angry because of the performance of Hugh Barrett on BBC News
The LSC maintained then and maintains now that the criteria were well known-they were not. That they were sensible and that the LSC could rely upon them-they are not nor should the LSC rely upon them. Also the LSC maintained that actually the cull of Solicitors' firms offering legal aid was NOT a bad thing and was a good thing as it maintained client choice.
I did some research. The LSC were well aware in June 2009 through the Quality Working Group that there was no evidence that accreditation was an indicator of quality. No detailed research had been undertaken on this point. So why did they use accreditation as a bid criteria? To get rid of firms.
Thankfully the Law Society undertook and succeeded in a Judicial Review, in which the LSC were heavily criticised.
The real problem is that the LSC has created a bureaucratic web that makes administering legal aid expensive. The blame for this rests with the lSC. To control costs the LSC has decided to reduce the number of Solicitors and others who provide publicly-funded advice. The LSC sets quality standards, audits files and firms, spends ages looking at how claims have been submitted. The LSC fails to recognise that it is this bureaucracy that needs to be addressed. If the systems of claiming-what is inevitably a fixed fee-were simpler and if there was no auditing by the LSC then costs would be reduced dramatically.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority regulates Solicitors. The SRA are responsible for quality. There is no need for the LSC to get involved in that.
There is no need for auditing IF a proper, simple payment regime can be created.
The LSC needs to look at how legal aid is administered and change its philosophy.
The LSC is under pressure. For the second year the National Audit Office would not sign off the LSC's accounts. Apparently too much money was paid to Solicitors. Why? The payment sytem is disproportionately complicated when compared to the fee per case. Of course the LSC was quick to blame Solicitors.
In 2011 it would be very nice if the MoJ and LSC stopped telling me and other Solicitors why we need to do it their way and instead talked to us about how to make the system better.
The SRA wishes to introduce Outcome Focused Regulation. The main reason for this appears to be that it will make things easier for me and will be really good. The truth is that it makes it easier for the SRA to be the Regulator of ABS's (Alternative Business Structures). OFR is unnecessary and will create chaos and disaster for clients and for Solicitors. It makes no sense. The SRA did not ask the profession if we wanted OFR. We were told it was coming and we have been consulted on delivery not principle. It is a pointless waste of time and effort.
In 2011 it would be nice if the SRA listened to what Solicitors are saying and stopped telling us how good OFR is going to be for us.
The Ministry of Justice wishes to reform sentencing and punishment. It wishes to reform a lot of the justice systems and impose upon those who are publicly funded a requirements to use mediation to resolve divorce issues. It is with such contempt that those who receive legal aid are held that they are told what system of justice best suits them. They have no choice-unless they meet certain criteria or are prepared to pay privately.
There has been a lot of criticism this year by Judges about legislation, the Family Courts massacre and on legal issues such as enforced mediation. The MoJ, rather like Labour, does not wish to hear from dissenters. Those who oppose do so for reasons of self interest.
The MoJ and LSC know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
In 2011 it would be nice if the Government reviewed how the justice systems operate, how they are funded and how access to those systems is funded.
My guess is that a lot of what the MoJ and Government in general proposes for Justice will not see the light of day. Towards the end of 2011 there is to be a further competitive tendering process for criminal contracts. My hope is that the ConDems realise that they meddle too much in legal aid provision and that a thorough, open and honest review is required. Competiive price Tendering is unnecessary.
I hope that the LSC/MoJ will release the research to justify the oft-made claim that England and Wales spends more per capita than any other country. One wonders if this statistic is as accurate as the data gathered on WMD in Iraq?
In 2011 I hope that the LSC/MoJ adopts an honest approach to how it conducts the "reform" of legal aid instead of lying at every cut and turn about what it aims to do and why what has been done has been done. Lying may be a strong word-but it accurately describes how the top executives of the LSC and how the civil servants in the MoJ pronounce on legal aid reform. If you watch the performance of the LSC before the Justice Committee you will see what I mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment