The Legal Services Commission (LSC) continually suggests that high quality costs less than average quality. In respect of mental health work, the cost/quality analysis is fundamentally flawed because it does not take travel expenses into account.


My firm specialises in mental health work and a large proportion of my case-costs relate to travel. Other mental health lawyers, particularly in London, do not need to travel long distances. In any event, the caseload of mental health firms varies so widely that cost and quality cannot sensibly be compared without considering the type of cases which the firm undertakes.



There is already increasing concern about the declining standard of representation in mental health review tribunals. Some firms use unqualified and untrained representatives. The low fees which these firms charge have reduced fixed fees for all firms because the fees are calculated on an average basis. The average has been calculated with no reference to the quality of work completed. These unscrupulous firms will receive an increase in their fees and good-quality firms which specialise in complex cases will suffer a massive reduction. The LSC is clearly intent on rewarding low-cost, low-quality firms.



Karen Wolton, Wolton & Co, Deal, Kent