Advertising watchdog backs PDS

Doubts have been cast over whether a level playing field exists in the Public Defender Service (PDS) pilot after it was suggested that it is allowed to demonstrate a lower standard of costs compliance than private practice.

The concerns arose following a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over PDS claims in recruitment advertisements that it was 'delivering value for money, raising standards, and shaping the system that combines the best features of public and private criminal defence services'.

Sunderland firm Jacqueline Emmerson Solicitors, Cumbria's JH Smith Solicitors and Andrew Keogh, an associate at national crime firm Tuckers, argued that the PDS did little to raise standards within the profession.

They said the PDS fared badly in terms of case costs and audit ratings compared to private practice.

However, the advertising watchdog ruled in favour of the PDS, saying the claims were 'aspirational' and so were justified.

'[The PDS] acknowledged that their Legal Services Commission (LSC) audit rating was poorer than that for private practice but explained that that was only in the case of cost compliance,' it added.

'They explained that their service operated in a different way to private practice and that that area was less relevant than the parts of the audit to do with quality.'

The LSC has promised that the PDS pilot would provide a level playing field to allow for an accurate comparison between private practice and salaried services.

But Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said the argument the PDS had used raised questions about whether that situation exists.

'There isn't a level playing field because they [the LSC] own the pitch and they are the only team playing on that pitch,' he said.

Mr Warren said it also raised concerns over whether the pilot was being evaluated properly.

'Even if the PDS costs less or the same as private practice, it should be demonstrating that value,' he insisted.

'The costs issues the PDS appears to want to dismiss cannot be dismissed legally - this is a pilot to ascertain a number of factors, and one of those is the cost of the PDS against private practice.'

An LSC spokesman welcomed the ASA ruling, adding that 'PDS bills are not used to ensure propriety of expenditure as they are for private practice contracted suppliers'.

He explained: 'For the PDS, the cost compliance audit process is part of the checking process for this research.'

Paula Rohan