Share |
The LSC has released further documents on its website about the recent secret meetings with those providers who earn large sums from legal aid.
All I have been given are the names of firms not the names of attendees.
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/ati/information_released.asp
What we have not been told is what was discussed. We have not been told what questions were asked nor what answers were given.
It has not been explained why those firms who earn over £2 million need to be spoken to separately from the rest of legal aid providers. The suspicion must be that those firms have a special place and perhaps the LSC listens more to their concerns than the concerns of smaller providers. The LSC has made it clear it believes there is "oversupply" and expects firms to merge. They believe that bigger firms can deliver greater efficiencies ie do more work for less money. The larger firms, to deliver the LSC's dream, need to capture a greater share of teh market and are frsutrated in so doing by smaller firms. The desire of bigger firms to gain market dominance is encouraged by the LSC because the bigger firms promise greater quality, training of future legal aid lawyers, greater control and supervision and greater accuracy in billing and legal advice as well as being involved in consultations.
There is no evidence bigger firms are better or offer greater quality of service. If there was evidence they would dominate the market. If they were already more efficient than smaller firms then that too would be reflected in their ability to do work better.
The truth is that they have raised concerns and worries and quality issues about smaller firms simply to encourage the LSC to work with them to develop a system of delivery of legal aid advice and representation that suits the larger firms and earns them a manipulated extra share of the market.
Smaller firms have coped better with the downturn in work and will cope better with legal aid reform. The LSC needs to wake up to this reality and let the market decide who delivers legal aid advice and representation best of all.
Apart from all that, I understand that the list of attendees at the Sheffield meeting might be inaccurate.
The LSC has released further documents on its website about the recent secret meetings with those providers who earn large sums from legal aid.
All I have been given are the names of firms not the names of attendees.
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/ati/information_released.asp
What we have not been told is what was discussed. We have not been told what questions were asked nor what answers were given.
It has not been explained why those firms who earn over £2 million need to be spoken to separately from the rest of legal aid providers. The suspicion must be that those firms have a special place and perhaps the LSC listens more to their concerns than the concerns of smaller providers. The LSC has made it clear it believes there is "oversupply" and expects firms to merge. They believe that bigger firms can deliver greater efficiencies ie do more work for less money. The larger firms, to deliver the LSC's dream, need to capture a greater share of teh market and are frsutrated in so doing by smaller firms. The desire of bigger firms to gain market dominance is encouraged by the LSC because the bigger firms promise greater quality, training of future legal aid lawyers, greater control and supervision and greater accuracy in billing and legal advice as well as being involved in consultations.
There is no evidence bigger firms are better or offer greater quality of service. If there was evidence they would dominate the market. If they were already more efficient than smaller firms then that too would be reflected in their ability to do work better.
The truth is that they have raised concerns and worries and quality issues about smaller firms simply to encourage the LSC to work with them to develop a system of delivery of legal aid advice and representation that suits the larger firms and earns them a manipulated extra share of the market.
Smaller firms have coped better with the downturn in work and will cope better with legal aid reform. The LSC needs to wake up to this reality and let the market decide who delivers legal aid advice and representation best of all.
Apart from all that, I understand that the list of attendees at the Sheffield meeting might be inaccurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment