Hugh Barrett (see letter) states that the tendering scheme in mental health was a success. The highly vulnerable clients we represent will often not see it that way.

The key to success in the new tendering process was to bid as high as possible and then to accept the apportioned result. Thus, I could have (but did not) bid for all 9,940 matter starts in London, where the proportion of matters allocated was around a third requested – the result being that I would have had a good slice of the cake at around 3,000 and would now go about recruiting additional staff accordingly. If I had simply bid for work in line with my existing matter starts of, say, 600, I would be left with 200; with the result that either I go out of business or cannot represent many of my existing clients. The same factors would work against a new firm that had also bid realistically.

This is not, therefore, an argument about opposing new firms going into this area of law. It is about a chaotic tendering system that discriminates against those who have realistically indicated the amount of proper work they can carry out. The exercise has encouraged a frantic scramble for new staff among those who have played the ‘winning numbers’ game with the Legal Services Commission. The outcome will disenfranchise many mental health clients from accessing quality lawyers of their choice, including many highly experienced lawyers who will simply not be allowed or able to do the work. Such clients are likely to see this as a failure rather than a success.

Richard Charlton, Chair, Mental Health Lawyers Association, London