Criminal practitioners will overwhelmingly understand and appreciate the stance of the Law Society in voting against criminal competitive tendering (see [2005] Gazette, 3 March, 1). However, it appears likely that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) will forge ahead with its plans.


Rather than voicing principled resistance, which may well melt away with effluxion of time or with token concessions by the LSC, would it not be to the greater benefit of criminal practitioners if the Law Society were to accept the likelihood of competitive tendering and devote some of its energies to assisting criminal firms through this difficult process?


If it is accepted that fewer firms will do more work at a lower average price, criminal practitioners deserve to be in a position to make a clear and dignified choice. To provide a fair choice means reasonable compensation for unsuccessful or exiting firms.


The LSC's consultation suggests a 'transitional period', for example, six months for unsuccessful firms to cease criminal contracted work.


However, where is the consideration for redundancy costs, lease commitments, costs of realising work in progress, redundant equipment and software and so on? Moreover, the LSC must surely appreciate that, without adequate compensation, many firms may feel compelled to bid at uneconomic rates because they cannot afford the exit costs - a recipe for the failure of the process.


Stephen Tranter, Tranters, Manchester