LSC drops legal aid contract changes
The Legal Services Commission has agreed to drop controversial changes to ongoing legal aid contracts following talks with the Law Society.
The commission is tendering for new contracts in the runup to legal aid reforms coming into effect on 1 April and had sought to apply a standard set of terms, even to contracts already running from 2010.
The LSC has a right to make ‘minor’ changes to contracts with the agreement of the Law Society, but the Society did not agree that the proposals fell into this category.
The Gazette has learned that, following talks with Chancery Lane, the LSC has agreed not to make three of the four contested changes, and compromised on the fourth. The proposals at issue would:
- Give the LSC powers to alter criminal contracts in response to changes to prosecution procedures. Had it gone ahead, this amendment would have allowed contracts to be changed to take into account initiatives such as the Crown Prosecution Service’s moves towards digital working and, the Law Society argued, would have given the prosecution an unfair advantage.
- Restrict the ability of firms to pay bills by instalments. At present, where firms owe money either to reconcile payments made on account or under the standard monthly payments, they can pay in instalments if the sum is greater than £1,000. The LSC wanted to increase this to £5,000. Given the cashflow implications for firms, the Law Society successfully resisted this.
- Amend a disclosure provision, to assert that firms consented to the disclosure of contract details instead of saying that the LSC had the right to disclose information. This was also dropped.
- Remove firms’ ability to undertake ‘tolerance work’ – limited amounts of legal help in areas outside those where they have a contract.
The Society said that some firms, particularly those with a mental health or clinical negligence contract, undertake significant amounts of community care work under tolerance. Here the two bodies compromised to the effect that firms with a continuing 2010 legal aid contract will be permitted to undertake community care work at the certificated level.
A Law Society spokeswoman said that ‘following constructive discussions with the LSC, three of the controversial changes proposed are not going ahead at this time, and an acceptable compromise has been reached on the fourth’.
An LSC spokesman said: ‘We are content with the position following discussions.’
Comments
well done everyone on
well done everyone on reaching this agreement.
chairs. titanic. deck.
Legal aid has become a near
Legal aid has become a near total irrelevance has it not? One either cannot obtain it for the client or cannot make any profit out of obtaining it for the client so why bother unless one is a CAB or Advice Centre. I stopped caring about legal aid years ago and found it quite liberating and we still have a contract. I think. Somewhere.
Unacceptable contract changes
I am no particular fan of the Law Society, but this time congratulations on resisting changes to the contract which would have forced criminal firms to comply with the CPS's demand for digital working. Our clients often do not have computers - except sometimes stolen ones! - and there is no way in which we could send them statements by email, so the cost of printing would simply be transferred to the defence. It is difficult to go through statements on a screen with a client peering over your shoulder, especially when it is a person you would very much rather not have too close!
There are security problems: if villains can hack into Prince Charles' phone they will have no problem hacking into our email systems. "Secure" email is not as secure as all that. And the advantage of a written document is that if it is changed in any way someone may well find out about it. Some people have forgotten why safeguards were laid down.
So please, don't weaken. We have enough expenditure without having to overhaul all our IT. Criminal legal aid practices are only surviving at all by cutting their expenses to the bone. There is going to be pressure to agree to scrapping paper to save money, but it's not a simple issue.
Unacceptable Contract Changes
I hear the pain on updating computer systems although digital working doesn't demand a crushingly expensive overhaul.
I would like to disagree with the perception that working digitally is less secure than the current paper and pen alternative. Hands up anyone who has left a piece of paper of importance behind in the court canteen, on the desk leaving for court etc and then hands up anyone who has experienced lost case files in and out the office?
Digital is more secure than human behaviour if you get it right and this isn’t a good reason to avoid it. Neither is pointing out that defendants don’t have computers unless they stole them. It isn’t about the ability to email your client but your ability to conduct the case without so many random bits of paper floating about. It costs a fortune to print out and working digitally avoids this as well as providing a safer way of keeping all parties involved in a case working together. It’s about saving significant amounts of money long term as well as helping people be a bit more efficient, helping them to win cases and do the job just a bit better. I wish it had been available to me when I did the job, it would have saved me hours and earned the firm more money.
And was I the only one to notice that the Law Society explicitly states that working digitally gives the CPS an unfair advantage? So they accept digital working is important then ….
"And was I the only one to
"And was I the only one to notice that the Law Society explicitly states that working digitally gives the CPS an unfair advantage?"
The Law Society didn't say that though, did they. Referring to the original article, the Law Society is quoted as saying that one of the new proposals would:
"Give the LSC powers to alter criminal contracts in response to changes to prosecution procedures. Had it gone ahead, this amendment would have allowed contracts to be changed to take into account initiatives such as the Crown Prosecution Service’s moves towards digital working and, the Law Society argued, would have given the prosecution an unfair advantage."
I interpret this as saying that the unfairness would arise from the LSC being allowed to alter criminal contracts in response to changes to prosecution procedures. The adoption of digital working by the CPS is simply a cost-cutting exercise on their part, removing postage expenses and passing on the expense of printing to the defendant's solicitors. To allow this transfer of cost, and resultant extra financial burden upon the defence, and then ALSO to reduce the fees the defence can claim would be very unfair indeed.
legal aid contract changes
You second comment: "Legal aid has become a near total irrelevance has it not? One either cannot obtain it for the client or cannot make any profit out of obtaining it for the client so why bother unless one is a CAB or Advice Centre. I stopped caring about legal aid years ago and found it quite liberating and we still have a contract. I think."
Shame on you - sir or madam.
For your views and your flippant tone.
Some of out here are still trying to work for clients who could not possibly afford access to justice without legal aid.
David Jockelson, Miles and Partners LLP E1.