Purge of criminal legal aid firms planned
Up to 75% of criminal legal aid firms will be removed from the market under far-reaching provider reforms set to be implemented from next summer.
The plans, announced by the Ministry of Justice this week, envisage a consolidated market in which contracts for larger volumes of work are given to a smaller number of providers. The move is aimed at enabling firms to take advantage of economies of scale and deliver services more efficiently.
Legal aid minister Lord Bach told the Gazette: ‘These proposals are likely to affect a large number of small and medium-sized firms, but the current arrangements are unsustainable. Solicitors have been telling us for some time that the amount they get from legal aid is not enough to keep them profitable. These plans will generate greater efficiencies for suppliers, help people access good advice, and get a better deal for the taxpayer.’
He estimated that no more than 500 firms will get contracts, which would mean that up to 75% of the 1,700 firms doing criminal legal aid work face an exit from the market. ‘The earliest date we envisage starting the new contracts in selected areas would be summer 2011,’ he added.
Firms will tender for the new contracts against fixed prices ‘set at a discount to current rates’, in contrast to the reverse auction envisaged for the now-abandoned best value tendering plans.
Justice secretary Jack Straw said the plans are ‘likely to create a more secure long-term base’ for lawyers dependent on public funds. Releasing the latest figures showing which firms earn most from legal aid, Straw also pointed out that the number of lawyers has almost tripled since the 1970s. He added: ‘We are in grave danger of becoming over-lawyered and underrepresented.’
However, Mike Jones, chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said the increase in the number of lawyers cited by Straw belies the fact that only 5,500 solicitors are qualified to do criminal legal aid work – the same number as 40 years ago.
‘We could argue that, given the number of new laws and procedural hurdles in recent years, we have been over legislated and underrepresented by our politicians,’ he added.
The Law Society said it accepted that reform is necessary but questioned the viability of the plans. President Robert Heslett said: ‘The model proposed by the ministry bears little resemblance to the market as it is currently structured, and it is not clear how, or how quickly, any move to such a model could be implemented without causing serious disruption to service provision.
‘We do not have an economic environment in which firms will find it easy to make the necessary investment to expand as much as would be required.’
The short timescale will bring to an end after only a year the three-year contracts that firms have just signed. Chancery Lane urged the MoJ to identify locations where the new scheme will initially be implemented as soon as possible to give maximum notice to those affected.
Three of the largest criminal legal aid firms – national firm Tuckers, London firm Kaim Todner and northern firm Switalskis – welcomed the proposals. Tuckers senior partner Franklin Sinclair said the changes ‘are long overdue and urgently required’.
But Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said the plans were ‘unfocused’, having no regard to issues of coverage or conflict, and amounted simply to ‘making a lot of noise’.
Comments
Purge of Criminal Legal Aid Firms
Another day, another attempt to strangle the life out of criminal legal aid. How many schemes are going to be dump, contracts signed and unilaterally abandoned, before the government finally wake up to the fact that (a) when you enact hundreds of new laws you create a need for legal representation (b) criminal legal aid lawyers are not public purse spongers.
So the latest 'answer' to the problem of, apparently, too many lawyers and not enough money to pay them - get rid of 2/3rds of them and let the 'big boys' (or should that be 'old white boys'?) flourish. Legal Aid Factories - how charming! And as for Frank Sinclair - well, given that he stands to benefit substantially from the abolition of his competition, he would say that wouldn't he! No doubt other large firms will follow suit, mopping up the best of the rest and maxing out the profits on the backs of wage slaves aka para legals - or do we call them interns these days?.
Good luck all.
Well said...
I don't need to say much on this issue beccause the writer underneath my comment so eloquently concurs with my views.
Purge of Criminal legal Aid Firms
I had only just digested the headline on the front page of the Gazette and it's impact to our firm when I read, a few pages later, an advert for Criminal Staff Nationally.My next worry will be, how many of my staff will apply for those positions offering 100% of Police Station Fees.
I note with interest that no mention has been made of the fact that all Criminal Practitioners have only just tendered for what we believed to be a Contract through to 2013!
I despair!
purge of criminal law firms
anon,
i'm afraid criminal legal lawyers are again rushing around trying to find enough sand to cover their heads. the min of justice has had a huge lump taken from its bank account. it's just not possible to pretend things can go on as before.choice is not great;either fewer firms benefiting from the economies of scale,or a substantial reduction in rates.
the solution is to look around and begin knocking on the doors of the other smallish firms in you area to discuss amalgamations, otherwise, the likes of tuckers will,as sure as eggs is eggs, mop up your work..
t
Purge of criminal law firms
What happens if there is a conflict between clients? If there's only one local provider then how can the client's interests be protected?
It's all very well banging on about economies of scale but we are meant to be acting professionally in the interests of justice..... aren't we?
conflicts
anon,
yes, there is a difficulty with conflicts, but that problem, often exaggerated, will not be difficult to deal with in many urban areas. the m.of j. position paper suggests dividing up some cj areas-most of the legal aid goes to the towns.
extra- urban areas will be dealt with separately. but the idea that the cost cutting will be saved by the conflict argument or indeed by a change of govt. is, i'm afraid, fanciful.the cupboard is bare.
big firms will see the main chance and step in and remember, as the possibility of alternative business structures comes into play next year, the bar will be sniffing around!
although i'm now retired,at the week-end, i was having supper with the senior partner of a large local firm. we both agreed the solution is substantial amalgamations-a solution hmg suggested some time ago; but lawyers are so secretive and suspicious of each other they are unwilling to knock on doors!
t
Purge
Mr Straw
I am a fellow legal professional, a duty solicitor. I am surprised that you have not written to me and my colleagues in the profession, inviting suggestions in respect of the savings required following the government's difficult financial position, before issuing the latest "proposal" on what must have been a very difficult day for the Government.
I, and I think it true of our colleagues at law, recognise my duty to preserve the public purse, in these difficult times. Likewise, I recognise that implicit in my duty to the court, is the maintenance of high quality representation and advice, to give effect to our adversarial system of justice.
Therefore I encourage you to invite suggestions and observations from every duty solicitor. No one is better placed, than those at the coalface, to provide suggestions for practical everyday savings which could be made without compromising quality. Not just in respect of the final structure, but how to facilitate the journey and make savings on the way.
I look forward to hearing from you.
I wonder, as Mr. Hatfield
I wonder, as Mr. Hatfield says he has retired whether he has now offered his services to the MOJ?
Also did he "knock on doors" before he retired?
I wonder, as Mr. Hatfield
I wonder, as Mr. Hatfield says he has retired whether he has now offered his services to the MOJ?
Also did he "knock on doors" before he retired?
C’mon people we haven’t
C’mon people we haven’t issued the Declaration of War yet. We’ll survive.
Either we’ll merge so we are part of larger regional co-operatives in which we still retain our local offices, just with a different name on the front, or there will become prevalent two/three man partnerships with 20 to 30 consultant duty solicitors. None of us like “factory law” so we’ll ensure we retain our local human feel.
The real danger is an elitist magic circle culture, which I feel is just incompatible with crime.
The real losers though in this will firstly be LPC graduates because there will, at least initially, be significantly fewer training contracts as we settle down. Secondly, the Bar will loose out big time as more and more incentives are placed on solicitor advocacy.
The structures may change but we will NEVER let Government reduce our standards of excellence. So please cheer up.
MoJ = Farce
It's so depressing to think that some partners in their own small firms have worked all their life to build up their practice to then see it pulled from under their feet without a second thought. From anyone.
Apart from the big firms that is - they'll be giving a second thought - but that'll be from a purely selfish point of view. Clearly no one seems to give two hoots about the the fact that undoubtedly, many solicitors (and of course their support/admin staff) are going to be looking at joining the dole queue. This is a pathetic state of affairs from a truely pathetic government and MoJ. The further knock on effect is that the greedy big firms can then start to dictate market salaries for criminal solicitors across the country. Of course, should the dispensible solicitor not like it, you will be told that there will be many out there (currently out of a job) who would. Ahhh what a glorious future this joke of a profession is looking forward to.
But, am I not right in thinking that the current proposal will lead the way to the generation of monopolies in towns and cities? Am I not right in thinking that there are rules in place to ensure fair competition exists?
I've just found the following definition... seems quite suitable to situation...
Monopoly:-
A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation).
One very annoyed Criminal (wish I hadn't bothered) Solicitor.
From my experience of crimbo
From my experience of crimbo work a few years ago, most of my clients (in a provincial town) could well have afforded to stump up private client fees, at least for Mags Courtwork...
lets tell the truth
too many firms over the years have effectively abused the legal aid system. Over billing left right and centre...to be fair you were given the opportunity but you then complain that you dont make enough money..... reform was surely going to happen. Now the honey pot is going to dry out...get used to it. If you made your money while rules were lax then go retire on a beach somewhere if you didnt then good luck.
Very dangerous. When you
Very dangerous. When you have a few large suppliers, who will bwe largely if not totally, dependent on the State for business, they will be tempted to be careful about not upsetting the wrong people.
The government, having with the help of the banks brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy, is looking to do everything on the cheap. Justice is clerarly no exception.
Honey Pot
Jay Jay abuses solicitors without any justification. If publically funded solicitors have been overcharging and bleeding the system dry should his anger not be directed towards the departments charged with checking all the bills supplied by the solicitors and in serious cases, reporting the offenders to the SRA or the Police? Solicitors do not pay themselves.
This does not happen as the problem does not exist. Bills are full and detailed. They can be supported by inspecting the file. The hourly rates are published. Would he /she like to earn that rate, and be on call all night and expected to go to work the following day, and pay for all his office overheads, rent, rates, support staff salary and so on out of that hourly rate? Would he/she expect a pot of honey for themselves to be left after that?
Black, Kettle, Pot...
I agree with Jay Jay, the system had its flaws just like the law and many criminal solicitors exploited, abused and claimed excessive costs.
All that the LSC is interested in is making sure all work is accounted for, not that difficult really is it!
I clearly remember my early days at a criminal defence firm, other than the fact that I was being exploited (not paid for 8 - months (that's another story)) I had to cross reference the dates of the duty solicitors diary with all the work I was producing to ensure that the units I billed did not conflict when he was out of office.
No doubt all others in the profession are all too familiar with.
I must have billed in excess of £50k (inconsiderate, thieving, bast*rds)
Happy days
we all like honey but most of us just have the pot
To the anonymous chap above who says:-
“Jay Jay abuses solicitors without any justification”………..…..lol this made me laugh.
“This does not happen as the problem does not exist”………....I bet he is one of the lucky few who can now afford to sit on a beach in the Bahamas….he states that he is an EX-solicitor….yeah sure and I’m micky mouse (just a guss and this is said in jest, but I bet you’re a sole practitioner based in Luton and upset because you will soon lose your criminal contract that has enabled you to buy a massive property you think you deserve).
I particularly liked the “Bills are full and detailed. They can be supported by inspecting the file”……are these the files that are favorably amended prior to peer reviews?
Blahblahblahetc’s comments says it all and speaks the truth. Too much of that stuff goes on…and on top of all that junior staff are exploited. This is the worst part in my opinion.
This part was also funny “…reporting the offenders to the SRA or the Police?”……..if someone mentioned this to the police they would tell you this is a ‘civil matter’..…..lol ……………as for the SRA, I hear they are merging with HSBCs call centre in India.
Divide et impera
No one has thought fit to comment on the Public Accounts Committees report ,which says small is profitable,large is not.Nor on the de-professionalisation of the magistrates court. This government wants a paralegal from a defence firm doing all cases in a magistrates court. As soon as the big firms are in place a block contract for one magistrates court will be iss uedbased on paralegal fees.People like Franklin Sinclair just don't see that.
purge of criminal legal aid firms
My firm was set up over twenty years ago.At the time it was a general practice.I was encouraged to specialize in criminal legal aid work and to take on more staff .As a result my firm has expanded and over 90% of my work is criminal defence work .I have never over-billed always dealt fairly and properly with my staff the courts clients the police the cps and all other parties.We have never received a complaint or negligence claim.I promised my staff and my family that if my firm obtained a new contract it would be for three years and there would be employment for at least three years and a fair level of pay.It now appears that this counts for nothing
honey pot
Jay Jay, it is clear to most readers that you have not worked in a legally aided criminal law firm for some time!
never going to happen anyway
lets face facts,
the MOJ and LSC have come up with plenty of ideas over the last 10 years and only a few have been successful. BVT for example went no where and cost the LSC god knows how much money!! I honestly think it wont happen, I'm not burying my head in the sand, i just dont think the MOJ and SRA will be able to pull off such a big task.
Who makes the rules?
Let me get this straight -
The Government want to reduce fees.
They decide not to implement BVT.
They need to decide upon a new approach.......
......hence they hold meetings with the larger firms and come up with the latest idea!!!!
I despair! Will the MOJ never learn.
Then again i may be wrong in my assumption. It is entirely possible that the large firms presented an idea that was focused on doing what was best for the client and not based on making more money.
The sad reality here is that in the short term this proposal may well save money by driving a large number of firms out of business, however within a few years the MOJ will realise that these large firms now have more control and the cost will continue to increase.
Does the criminal commando
Does the criminal commando have a spell check?
The brash, pervasive, all
The brash, pervasive, all advertising no knickers, employing spotty youths Tuckers to answer your queries at the 24 hour drive in clinic are as to criminal practice as McDonalds are too edible food. The only difference is that McD's have to cope with real competition in a real market place while Mr Sinclair appears intent on becoming a taxpayer funded monopoly supplier of slop.