Stand-off on criminal contract looms large

The prospect of legal aid practitioners refusing to sign the 2004 criminal contract is looming after the Legal Services Commission (LSC) revealed how it will put government cost-cutting policies into action - including plans that go beyond what the politicians recommended.

Launching a consultation on changes to the criminal contract, the LSC proposed extending to all cases the controversial telephone advice fee - which replaces rates for individual items of work done - and removing the right to duty solicitor rates for advising suspects who are bailed to return to the police station.

The plans - which came in the same week that the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) told the LSC to clamp down on civil firms that are overcharging and under performing - supplement hard-hitting recommendations from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) (see [2003] Gazette, 12 June, 1).

These were aimed at slashing almost 100 million off the crime budget.

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and chairman of the Law Society's access to justice committee, expressed fears that there will now be a replay of the 2001 chaos, with solicitors threatening to refuse to sign the contracts.

'The LSC assumes that won't happen, but it is now a real likelihood,' he warned.

'It can't expect the profession to take what it has thrown at us - one bad decision after another - and just accept it.'

Mr Warren also predicted that overall changes to the contract could lead to every partner in a criminal law firm having to take a pay cut, causing more damage to the already 'fragile' specialist supplier base.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva warned against restricting the right to support and advice for people detained at a police station.

'We are concerned at the LSC's proposal to impose a fixed fee for police station telephone advice,' she said.

Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, agreed that the LSC's extra moves 'could represent a significant cut in payments to the profession'.

But an LSC spokesman said the additional measures were in line with the government's goal of obtaining value for money.

'The DCA would not run a consultation on more specific detailed matters set out in the contract,' he explained.

'These are a matter for the LSC.'

Meanwhile, LSC chief executive Clare Dodgson backed the PAC's findings on the workings of the Community Legal Service and agreed in particular to target poor performers who 'tarnish the reputation' of quality suppliers.

The PAC also suggested that it should make more use of peer review to assess quality and look into using specially trained non-lawyers in areas of law that are currently experiencing a shortfall in suppliers.

See Editorial, page 14 (see [2003] Gazette, 26 June)

Paula Rohan