Family law supplier base ‘decimated’ by LSC tender
Thursday 29 July 2010 by Catherine Baksi
The family law supplier base has been ‘decimated’ by the ‘shock’ outcome of the Legal Services Commission’s tender for civil legal aid work, lawyers groups alleged this week.
The Law Society and Legal Aid Practitioners Group said member feedback indicated that around half of firms that bid had not been offered contracts, with some areas left with just a single provider. The LSC confirmed that the number of family providers has fallen by approximately 46%, from 2,400 to around 1,300.
Law Society president Linda Lee said ‘hundreds of good firms’ have been lost to the legal aid scheme. She has written to legal aid minister Jonathan Djanogly requesting an urgent review of the process to prevent ‘tens of thousands’ of clients being left without access to a solicitor. Chancery Lane is also seeking urgent legal advice on whether there are grounds to challenge the tender outcome.
Former LSC chief executive Carolyn Regan had written to the Society in January stating ‘it is not our intention that the tender round should significantly reduce the provider base’.
Law Society legal aid policy manager Richard Miller said: ‘Because of this assurance the result has come as a terrible shock to firms, who are not prepared for the possibility of life outside legal aid. Many firms could be closed, and many partners and sole practitioners may become insolvent.’
Simon Pottinger, a consultant to legal aid firms, said the result was a ‘total bloodbath’ for firms and the supplier base had been ‘decimated’. He said it would lead to children or other parties going unrepresented in complex, multi-party child care cases because no solicitor would be available to act.
LAPG director Carol Storer said: ‘The next few months will be very unstable. This is unpalatable for practitioners and disruptive to clients who will find it hard to get a lawyer, especially in rural areas.’
The LSC said the majority of firms that lost out in the bidding had opened fewer than 100 new family cases in the last financial year. It said there would be at least five providers in each ‘procurement area’.
LSC chair Bill Callaghan said: ‘We are confident that we now have a quality provider base and quality-assured provision across England and Wales.’
Comments
The supplier base has not
The supplier base has not been "decimated" as more than 10% were lost.
The writing is on the wall
The LSC is going the way of the supermarkets. They want a few large suppliers to whom they can dictate terms, as the alternative to the supplier is closing down.
decimate
dec·i·mate
[des-uh-meyt]
–verb (used with object), -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
1.
to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2.
to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3.
Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.
Catherine's usage is perfectly correct.
Well this is what the
Well this is what the government and subsequent govt's will continue to do. That is to shrink the legal aid bill to almost nothing, whereby clients will have to privately pay for their own legal costs. Will I guess this is what 13 years of the new labour has given to us.
Decimate
can't resist adding my pennyworth.
Decimation was orginally a penalty for Roman Legions. If they performed particularly badly every, tenth man was put to death.
sad arent I?
Regards to all!
and the one out of each ten
and the one out of each ten that was chosen were beaten to death by the other 9...
"The LSC said the majority of
"The LSC said the majority of firms that lost out in the bidding had opened fewer than 100 new family cases in the last financial year."
I know we shouldn't be surprised by the half-truths peddled by the LSC, but this takes the biscuit. "Opening new family cases" means matter starts, ie new legal helps. It specifically excludes every case that goes straight to certificate, through devolved powers (the majority of my certificates are devolved powers, as I specialise in DV) and any cases where the DV waiver is invoked, as such clients aren't eligible for Legal Help.
Furthermore, like most suppliers, following the unfavourable audit of the LSC, my allocated matter starts were summarily reduced from a figure well over 150, to a figure significantly under 100. And when I applied for more, I was refused. So I would have struggled to have "opened" in their sense more than 100 matters : because they refused to allow me, even though I was turning away work daily.
The LSC have proven their determination to destroy legal services for the most vulnerable in this society. I wish they would be honest about it.
It says a lot that the only
It says a lot that the only discussion about this issue is over the meaning of the word decimate. It's a bit like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Summer of discontent
Polite discourse is going to be insufficient to convey how utterly complacent, ill-informed and short-sighted Callaghan looks on the basis of his quote at the end of the above piece. He ought to end up eating those words.
Bid Round
I am shocked at resolution who are comfortably sitting on the fence for fear of 'upseting' those that retained their franchise. As fully paid up members I would have thought that they would have taken a more pro active stand. If we lose out there would be little point in paying our yearly membership fees and Resolution would sffer financialy, or am I just being cynical?
LSC RESPONSE ON RADIO FOUR
Radio Four's Today programme this morning carried an interview with the Law Society and LSC on the problems that will be caused by 1100 firms having their contracts withdrawn and was surprised to hear the LSC spokesman say that the decision had not been made on cost grounds (based on fixed fees and the same number of matter starts) but on quality grounds!
All firms currently undertaking LSC work have been vetted to ensure they are of good quality and are able to provide a good service to clients; what does it say about this level of quality if 1100 firms are now being told that they have been refused contracts on the basis of not being of a high enough quality to do the same work in future? Are those firms lucky enough to get a contract going to be required to improve their quality systems even further to show they are now of an even higher quality, and if so what extra hoops are they going to have to jump through to achive this (and who is going to pay for it?)?
So a firm with the LSC
So a firm with the LSC "Quality Mark" isn't of sufficient quality any more............? So a firm with the "Quality Mark" and contracts at some of its offices is not good enough at all of its offices as those offices are treated as seperate bids? The whole thing has been dreamed up by a bunch of consultants who the LSC should refuse to pay for messing up. And ignore the "outcomes" of the "tender" process as it is flawed.
Bid round
Whilst we were 'lucky' enough to win a contract we have only been allocated 19% of our current NMS. We achieved peer review 2 one of the only Firms in our area who did. We were marked down on the selection criteria as we had 2 panel members in a team of six. Other local Firms have 'employed' other panel members for a few hours a week to fulfil the requirement and we subsequently suffered.
We came very close to losing our contract and I suspect that many PR 2 Firms have done so discussions about quality are infuriating!
How can it be argued that
How can it be argued that contracts were awarded based upon quality. The cut off number of points were different in each procurement area. I have lost my contract - 5 points short yet if my offices/bid had been in any one of my 3 adjoining procurement areas I would have been awarded a contract. It is just a post code lottery. I am of sufficient standard to provide the service in my adjoining procurement areas but not in the one I am in. What complete nonsense !!!! And what do we think the chances are of the LSC admitting they got it wrong?
I cannot wait to see how they try to dig their way out of it when the family justice system grinds to a halt in the very near future.