By Catherine Baksi


The Law Society said this week that the new general criminal contract (GCC) is not unlawful and that it is unable to advise practitioners not to sign it, despite major concerns over the terms.



Advice from Andrew Munday QC on the interplay between the GCC and CDS Direct, and how (if at all) CDS Direct affects the ability of clients to receive proper professional, independent advice, concluded it was separate from the other issues relating to the GCC and did not give the Society grounds to advise members that the contract is unlawful and that they should not sign.



Many practitioners believe the GCC is weighted too much in favour of the Legal Services Commission (LSC), and the Law Society is concerned that several clauses appear not to comply with July's judicial review ruling on the unified contract, the appeal of which is being considered by the Court of Appeal.



The Society said: 'If the outcome renders certain clauses unlawful and firms suffer loss as a result, there may be a claim for damages against the LSC. However, we cannot argue that the entire contract is or may be unlawful on this basis.'



But issuing a statement on behalf of itself and other representative bodies, the Society made it clear that competition law prohibited it from advising practitioners not to sign the contract. It stressed the decision has to be taken by individual firms, which need to consider whether or not they can provide a financially viable service, which complied with professional conduct requirements, within the framework of the GCC.



The LSC intends to implement the interim GCC from 14 January 2008. Practitioners have until 31 October to decide whether to sign it.



Brian Craig, chairman of the Association of Major Criminal Law Firms, said the contract was not financially viable for a lot of firms, but anticipated that many would sign to give themselves six months to plan an exit strategy from legal aid.



Roy Morgan, chairman of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said: 'Without a steer from the Law Society, most people will sign and many are already doing so.'



Andrew Keogh of national firm Tuckers suggested that the restrictions the Society faced on the advice it could give meant the profession might have to consider 'unionisation'.



But Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said: 'When the message is an unpalatable one, it is easy to blame the leadership if you want a different result. This is not a position the Law Society has put us in, but that the LSC has put us in.'