Banking on survival

It comes as no surprise to learn that many firms involved with criminal contracting are on the brink of a cash-flow disaster, but it is naive to think that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) billing targets were plucked 'out of thin air' (see [2001] Gazette, 19 July, 3).

They were based on actual performance over a 12-month period.

The reason most firms will find them unattainable is that the calculations were based on the value of claims, including work on indictable-only offences in the magistrates' courts.

This work is no longer included in the contract payment.At the same time, the LSC has imposed an administrative burden on firms which is time- consuming, unworkable and unrealistic.

It impinges on our ability to process cases at the breakneck speed required to meet the deadlines that are now required of us - and cripples our attempts to cut costs and improve efficiency.

This comes at a time when the Crown Prosecution Service is receiving extra funding and having its administrative burden reduced.I disagree with the assertion that the LSC would not relish firms being pushed to the brink of financial extinction.

Who would stand to benefit? The LSC would have fewer contracts to audit, fewer payments to make, and would reduce its own costs if we go to the wall.

The government has an agenda here - it needs to have a cheap pool of available advocates to staff the Criminal Defence Service and it has engineered the perfect way to create it.

Make no mistake, the present crisis is no accident.

It will have been carefully calculated by an administration with little interest in our survival.David Munro, partner, Williamson & Soden, Birmingham