By Catherine Baksi


The Law Society is about to launch judicial review proceedings against the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for failing to act on a Court of Appeal judgment that its unified contract for civil legal aid fees is unlawful.



The Society won a ruling in the Court of Appeal last November which found that the new civil contract breached EU public procurement legislation (see [2008] Gazette, 6 December, 1). The court said the LSC did not have the power to unilaterally amend the contract in the way it had proposed, in an attempt to introduce new fees.



Since the ruling, the LSC has indicated it will terminate the contract, but the Law Society claims it has failed to take any positive action to alter the offending clauses or take any other remedial action.



Chancery Lane will now launch 'imminent' judicial review proceedings seeking a declaration that the LSC's failure to act is a breach of EU law. It has already sent a letter before action to the LSC.



Three law firms are also bringing test cases against the LSC, supported by the Law Society. London firms Fisher Meredith, Kaim Todner and Farrell Matthews & Weir are all claiming financial loss due to the LSC's contract amendments.



In its letter before action to the LSC, the Law Society said: 'While the LSC continues to insist that the judgment of the court has no effect on the amendments it has purported to make, and refuses to take the action required of it by EU law, there is a fundamental disagreement which, in the interests of achieving clarity, may have to be resolved by the court.'



In response, the LSC said Chancery Lane had 'misunderstood the scope and effect' of the Court of Appeal's judgment. It said it would defend the fee schemes and contracting arrangements from any challenge, while exploring ways to avoid further litigation. It proposed the introduction of new contracts around October 2008.



Commenting on the proposed legal action, Roy Morgan, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said: 'Practitioners around the country have been impressed that at last the Law Society has secured a victory. And, as the LSC appears to be ignoring the judgment, the feeling is that the Law Society should drive home that victory and ensure the LSC complies with the law.'