LSC chief: family tender outcome 'unintentional'
The Legal Services Commission did not intend the outcome of the recent family tender which saw a 46% fall in the number of providers, its chief executive told the Gazette this week in her first press interview since her appointment.
Carolyn Downs (pictured), a career civil servant who took over the reins as LSC chief executive in March, said the job has been the ‘most challenging’ role she has ever undertaken.
Downs said she was used to challenge and criticism, but had been surprised by the attitudes she had encountered, ‘where it would appear to be acceptable for people to talk to each other in a really rather adversarial, aggressive and inappropriate fashion’.
She said providers and the LSC needed to ‘engage more constructively and more openly’, but added ‘it is very difficult to have open and engaged discussions with people who are constantly threatening to sue you’.
The recent civil tender exercises resulted in large numbers of firms losing contracts, and have prompted individuals and representative groups, including the Law Society, to take advice on legal challenges to the process.
Overall, Downs said the LSC had achieved its aim of re-tendering the civil and criminal contracts on a ‘very tight timescale’ to ensure a ‘quality and sustainable provider base from October 2010’. However, she accepted that issues had arisen that had caused providers concern.
On the family tender, which resulted in around 46% of firms that bid failing to get contracts, she said: ‘I do not believe that was the stated intention of the LSC going into the tender process’.
But Downs said providers had requested higher levels of quality criteria to be incorporated into the bidding process, which the LSC had done, and that was the reason why so many firms had not been successful.
Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said: ‘Carolyn has come into the LSC at a time when providers are at their wits’ end. When they feel negotiation has failed, lawyers will naturally look to litigation as the next step.’
Storer accepted that the LSC had tried to incorporate quality into the bidding process, but said the criteria were not ‘targeted’, which meant ‘lots of excellent providers didn’t get contracts’.
- Click here for the full interview
Comments
Empathy
Ms Downs. You claim to have empathy with practitioners, so imagine your gold plated pension was removed. Now you are in the position of most legal aid practitioners. Then imagine you are sacked and can't find another job. You are in the position of a lot of assistant solicitors in legal aid. Then imagine a decision by another organisation will bankrupt you and put you and your family on the street. The leader of that organisaton accuses you of innappropriate language. Being rude,in short. It is time you started empathising and realising that your organisation is making decisions which are destroying peoples lives.
Empathy-Clarification
It is, of course, the partners of legal aid firms who do not get contracts who will be bankrupted.
Easy solution
So, an unintended outcome, and it sounds as if it is also one that the LSC are not necessarily happy with. A different take than that from Hugh Barrett on Radio 4 yesterday, but welcome nonetheless. So, the LSC are not thrilled, there does not appear to be any support among family practitioners, so we need to find a solution. That solution is in the ITT documentation - the LSC has the power to scrap the tender. So, do some of that listening and make a lot of people happy. Over to the LSC....
"adversarial" and "aggressive"
"where it would appear to be acceptable for people to talk to each other in a really rather adversarial, aggressive and inappropriate fashion".
"adversarial" and "aggressive" surely the mark of a good litigator? "inappropriate" surely depends on context, is this just another way of saying adversarial and aggressive? No doubt if Ms Downs finds herself needing to pursue or defend litigation she will seek out one of those give-in easily, poodle lawyers to represent her. Typical civil servant, doesn't appreciate the nature of the role (we have an adversarial legal system!) not on top of her brief, nothing to lose because of job for life, guaranteed pension etc.
Whilst 'adversarial' and
Whilst 'adversarial' and 'agressive' behaviour is perhaps the hallmark of a good litigator, it is inappropriate in my mind that they should be used in relation to a commissiong organisation which in my firm's case pays for 80% of the work I undertake. Presumably we don't treat other institutional purchasers of our services in the same way? (I do accept that most of us are at our wits end, though!)
It's all very well to continously slate the LSC, however dire the organisation, when the real reason for the perverse results of the family tender boils down to nothing more than lack of budget from MoJ. We need to address the political lack of support for legal aid - not simply kick the donkey that delivers it.
Dear oh Dear
Franchising is the problem. It set the LSC on a course of micro management that has raised costs, concentrated ownership and done nothing for quality.
Would the LSC please confine itself to price setting and let us innovate to meet that price and grow our business' by improving the quality of our service. After all isn't this what business strives to do.
The SRA regulate us. Does the LSC really believe the SRA can't do it's job.
Empathy
and no doubt she will be saying tomorrow she wants her life back................
"unintentional"?...You
"unintentional"?...You could'nt rely on these people to run a whelk stall..they are a profound,unmitigated shambolic disgrace...they should be hounded from the non jobs in derision
Coalminers 1985, Legal Aid
Coalminers 1985, Legal Aid solicitors 2010 ? Oh well, at least our extinction is "unintentional" this time round...
Family Tender
What can be done to Remedy this unexpected outcome?
The LSC should as a matter or urgency identify appeals based on the wrong allocation of points i.e wher panel mambership has been wrongly entered and advise appellants accordingly as a matter or urgency and apologise for their mistake.
They Should imediatley withdraw all matter starts from succesful applicants until the appeal process has been finalised, I find the allocation of matter starts at this early stage shows a lack of understanding of the system whereby firms have to forward plan based on the numbers given and will cause firms to consider expansion, redundancy or closure.
I hope I am not correct in thinking that the LSC have predetermined that no appeals will be successful therefore a readjustment of matter starts will not take place
a cat amongst the pigeons
They have apparently held some back (which were additional to the stated procurement plan figures) for such eventualities.
They can scrap the whole thing at any time they choose to, but what do they do then? It makes no sense; where there have been errors in scoring these should be rectified, but they will struggle to penalise the successful firms, without this causing further appeals and arguments.
One other thought is that once the appeals for Family Lawyers are heard, and they realise that actually 3 more firms scored top marks too, surely then the "held back" matter starts have to be pro-rata'd between all top scoring firms?!
What would Ms Downs have to
What would Ms Downs have to say if someone decided to wipe out her livelihood, I certainly doubt she would be very happy and perhaps that may come across in an adversarial, aggressive, unacceptable mannor.
Her comments do nothing other than rile the profession, if only someone at the LSC was legally qualified and had attempted to practice law they wouldnt be quite so out of touch
Anyway I suppose it will never effect people like Ms Downs as she will fortunately never need to rely on Legal Aid. Again she is totally out of touch.
How long will it take for the LSC to need us again and be trying to make Family Legal Aid attractive again becuase those selective few with contracts are unable to keep up with the demand. Demand will likely rocket due to all those practioners being redundant or bankrupt and thereby claiming benefits or recieving low income and needing legal aid!!!
Oh well as long as the LSC staff aren't to be made redundant and face losing their homes the world will be ok!!
Naturally Ms. Downs has no
Naturally Ms. Downs has no idea about what she is doing-she is a civil servant, not there to be civil or serve anyone other than themselves.
But on the other hand the Law Society acquiesced in the creation of the bureaucratic SRA so it is unlikely to be of any use in fighting this situation.
Family tender - sympathy for the devil?
My favourite quote has to be:
"She said providers and the LSC needed to ‘engage more constructively and more openly’, but added ‘it is very difficult to have open and engaged discussions with people who are constantly threatening to sue you’."
Well, it seems that she must empathise with the suppliers then.
Threats to sue have been the order of the day in the criminal legal aid world for some time. "We'll revoke your contract." "If you strike, we'll prosecute and, on top of that, you'll lose your contract."
Stop whinging and just do your job. You back a dog into a corner and it may bite. The LA lawyers of England and Wales have had enough. How much further do you think you can push before you cause the collapse that has been predicted by so many for so long.
Finally, if the LSC is spending such stupid money on "consultations" (or done deals as I like to think of them), and are still experiencing "unexpected consequences" then surely they are admitting that their market impact assessments are not working? Suck it and see has no place when you are affecting the professions and livelihoods of those who earn fairly modest salaries for helping those who need us most. Even with no sorrow for the neglected, second-hand Jags of partners who were on the gravy train back in the day, you must see that the damage being done to the suppliers is impacting upon the service users?
Disgrace
The real disgrace here are those firms who have intentionally over bid in an attempt to put firms out of business. Where i am, one firm has been awarded 2300 matter starts for one office! Over half of the NMS available! They don't even have enough fee earners to start with let alone the ability to get 2300 clients through the door every year!
Greed has provailed in a number of procurement areas.
It's all pointless
Fascinating, truly, truly remarkable.
'Relationship Managers' come to our offices to say hello under the guise of an audit (or was it the other way round) and yet we should all be friends. Why even call them Relationship Managers? It's so patronising and why not just call an audit an audit?
And when we are expected, not unreasonably, to have the systems in place to give a snapshot financial breakdown of WIP, POAs, etc is it really sufficient for the LSC when asked how much the tender process cost to say 'I don’t know accurately'.
The conflict derives from us having to meet exacting standards (SRA, Peer Review, LSC Audits, Annual Accounts) and yet we are policed by an organisation that announced the results of some bid rounds 3 months late, 3 months! It beggars belief.
Quality
Who requested higher levels of quality?
What evidence is there that accreditation/panel membership guarantees quality?
The whole process has been a farce and the result of too many people at TLS and in Resolution and other groups deciding what is best/necessary without proper consultation.
The LSC and MoJ should be judicially reviewed till Kingdom come.
Antipodean equivalents
As a New Zealand lawyer who has been closely involved in issues with the (New Zealand) Legal Services Agency, I am fascinated by the exact equivalents in what you are experiencing, and what is happening in New Zealand.
The LSA here thinks that criticism is a threat, and that any 'negativity' is a breach of obligation. This is despite the constitutional right to freedom of expression. (As a result, the LSA and I have had a serious falling out and legal proceedings are afoot. However, we are still talking occasionally and I hope that things can be resolved without needing judicial intervention.)
This mindset seems to be embedded in the bureaucracy as such. There is a chasm between the bureaucratic mind and the legal mind. I don't think lawyers understand that. We need to make more effort to bridge that chasm, because the bureaucrats don't even know that the chasm is there, and it is the lawyers who should be upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the executive does not overstep the mark. That is scary, because if you insist on this, you risk having your contract cancelled or your tender declined. But surely the lawyers en bloc could do something, even if it is hard for individuals on their own?
It is fair to say that one should not be aggressive or abusive towards one's major customer. That is something that we lawyers sometimes overlook in respect of the legal-aid bureaucracy.
It is also fair to say that one should not NEED to be aggressive towards one's major customer. Threats to sue are interpreted adversely by the LSA here, as apparently also by your LSA. Again, I think that's the bureaucratic mind. They do not understand that a threat to sue one's major customer is (a) an indication of total frustration at a lack of communication or resolution; (b) a last resort; (c) because those making the threat care passionately about the work they are doing and the clients they are trying to help, and anyone who cares enough to threaten to sue about it should be rewarded rather than trampled.
The New Zealand legal-aid system is about to change - the bill has been introduced into Parliament this week. It provides for more government control of legal-aid providers, and tenders and alternative modes of supply; and I hope that New Zealand lawyers will take a good look at your experience because I suspect it does not bode well for ours.
Lawyers do need to note that quality of service has been a problem in the past, and that denying this is not helpful. Bureaucrats need to note that better communication and training is the solution, not throwing grenades. All need to talk to each other civilly, to share their respective expertise and develop quality criteria and standards that suit the work that is being done without unduly restricting individual practices in how they produce that work.
Stay calm, and as Ury and Fisher said (in 'Getting to Yes'), 'Yield only to principle, not to pressure.'
Unintentional intentionalism
So, Downs, what exactly was the intention of the LSC, other than to cull the number of practicing legal aid solicitors? Tendering processes coupled with legal aid cuts are bound to have that effect, are they delusional or just bulls****ers?
Most challenging job she's done? Big wow! Perhaps if the LSC treated us like professionals instead of puppets (or should that be muppets?) then perhaps we may feel like engaging with them more rather than threatening to sue them for THEIR mistakes.
"Downs said she was used to challenge and criticism, but had been surprised by the attitudes she had encountered, ‘where it would appear to be acceptable for people to talk to each other in a really rather adversarial, aggressive and inappropriate fashion" - nature of the job love, then again the LSC wouldn't know what made a good solicitor, would they?
LSC Chief:tender outcome unintentionial
How long can this (now by her own admission) accident prone and overly-sensitive CEO stay in her job? What did she expect from lawyers facing closure and loss of their careers and fighting for access to justice for their clients. Not content with presiding over the catastrophic closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice, instructing counsel to blame everyone else except the LSC in the ensuing court proceedings against the LSC, not content with a farcical immigration tender process leaving parts of the country without any providers, she now wants to take the credit for "ensuring a quality and sustainable provider base" whilst at the same time pleading that the dreadful outcome of the family tender process was "unintentional".
So which one is it to be? You cannot unintentionally ensure anything, except of course if you are happy to take full credit for the reckless and senseless destruction of legal aid and the attendant miscarriages of justice that will follow as a certain consequence of the LSC's actions.
LSC Chief:tender outcome unintentionial
How long can this (now by her own admission) accident prone and overly-sensitive CEO stay in her job? What did she expect from lawyers facing closure and loss of their careers and fighting for access to justice for their clients. Not content with presiding over the catastrophic closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice, instructing counsel to blame everyone else except the LSC in the ensuing court proceedings against the LSC, not content with a farcical immigration tender process leaving parts of the country without any providers, she now wants to take the credit for "ensuring a quality and sustainable provider base" whilst at the same time pleading that the dreadful outcome of the family tender process was "unintentional".
So which one is it to be? You cannot unintentionally ensure anything, except of course if you are happy to take full credit for the reckless and senseless destruction of legal aid and the attendant miscarriages of justice that will follow as a certain consequence of the LSC's actions.
unintentional outcome
So the 46%outcome was "unintentional"? As another correspondent says,what did LSC expect from this process?Given the result they have got,and the ability of LSC to rescind it and rethink,what happens next will demonstrate good faith or bad faith. Dialogue with LSC is fraught just now,theyre fightened to death, and refuse to give any information about the future ,hiding behind the fact that tender appeals are unresolved.You would think it was reasonable to ask for details of tender outcomes in your area,and for abrief as to what to advise clients when we run out of matter starts, but those are apparently impermissible questions.
The tender process has felt like taking part in agame where you dont know the rules but the stakes are very high if you get it wrong.
As for Carolyn Downs being "surprised by attitudes"this illustrates that she has no understanding of the desparation that legal aid lawyers have felt in recent years.This tender outcome is the endof the line for many ,and the CEO is upset!
unintentional outcome
So the 46%outcome was "unintentional"? As another correspondent says,what did LSC expect from this process?Given the result they have got,and the ability of LSC to rescind it and rethink,what happens next will demonstrate good faith or bad faith. Dialogue with LSC is fraught just now,theyre fightened to death, and refuse to give any information about the future ,hiding behind the fact that tender appeals are unresolved.You would think it was reasonable to ask for details of tender outcomes in your area,and for abrief as to what to advise clients when we run out of matter starts, but those are apparently impermissible questions.
The tender process has felt like taking part in agame where you dont know the rules but the stakes are very high if you get it wrong.
As for Carolyn Downs being "surprised by attitudes"this illustrates that she has no understanding of the desparation that legal aid lawyers have felt in recent years.This tender outcome is the endof the line for many ,and the CEO is upset!
press pick up the story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900573
LSC chief: family tender outcome 'unintentional'
I wonder if Carolyn Downs could advise how we ‘engage more constructively and more openly’ when we are restricted to the pathetic bravo message board that rarely seems to prompt the lsc into the courtesy of a reply. A hepline manned by humans might go some way to help with the enormous anxiety and frustration felt by practitioners at the moment.