By Catherine Baksi


The High Court ruled last week that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) was in breach of procurement legislation over the new unified contract.



However, the LSC insists that its civil legal aid fee reforms are still on track.



In judicial review proceedings brought by the Law Society, Mr Justice Beatson ruled that the LSC had not complied with its legal obligations under the Public Contract Regulations 2006 and European law.



The judge said the contractual provision enabling the LSC to amend the contract in relation to fee levels and structures was lawful. However, he accepted the Law Society's argument that the contract did not comply with procurement requirements relating to amendments to the 'technical specifications' of the contract, such as peer review processes and key performance indicators.



Mr Justice Beatson said the LSC may have to undertake a new contracting procedure if 'the LSC seeks to make amendments which alter the economic balance of the contract to the disadvantage of those who have entered into the unified contract, or to the disadvantage of some of them', rather than being entitled to rely on the amendment provisions.



The judge noted that any proposed changes should be restricted to those envisaged by the initial White Paper, Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead.



He also ruled that the commission should pay 75% of the costs of the action. Both the LSC and the Law Society said they are considering an appeal on the points they lost.



Law Society President Andrew Holroyd said: 'This judgment underlines the shortcomings of the LSC's approach to the reforms of the legal aid system. The award of 75% of costs is a significant vindication of the actions we are taking.'

Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said: 'At long last, we have seen the LSC held to account after

trampling on the rights of the profession. The LSC's own response to this judgment demonstrates no humility, no acknowledgement of their failure to comply with the law and a denial that the judgment has any implications for the introduction of fixed fees.'



The LSC insisted it still intended to implement the new fee schemes in October 2007, relying on the existing powers of amendment.