Law Society pushes for fair deal on Criminal Legal Aid Contract

Friday September 21st 2007

The Law Society has urged the Government to defer changes to the criminal legal aid contract for legal, practical and economic reasons, arguing that it is impossible for firms to know whether the scheme will be viable for them without having clear information about what they are being forced to sign up to. 

The Law Society asked the Legal Services Commission for a draft of the contract it would be inviting firms to sign, and to meet with the Society and the other representative groups to discuss the terms. The Commission rejected that reasonable request, and has chosen instead to send the contract direct to firms without any discussion.

The Society rejects the implication that it is to blame for the Commission offering a short-term contract. The present situation has arisen because the Commission was found by the High Court to have acted unlawfully. Even given the present situation, the LSC would not have to issue short-term contracts if it were not trying to bring in too many changes in too short a timescale.

Most significantly, the Society has argued that it is unreasonable to set a deadline for signing up to a transitional scheme when the LSC cannot yet tell us what the transition is leading to. Given that the Commission has not even issued its consultation paper on best value tendering, let alone set out the detail of the scheme to which they wish to move, the transitional scheme may prove wholly inappropriate as a step towards the final scheme that emerges. From a business perspective, it is therefore impossible for firms to know whether the ultimate scheme will be viable for them. How, therefore, can they make a sound business decision on whether to embark on the transition?

This question is particularly important in the light of the strong and uncontradicted economic evidence that even some of the best run criminal defence firms are on the brink of financial difficulties, even before these new large cuts in fees are introduced. The LSC and the Ministry of Justice have continued to ignore this evidence.

President Andrew Holroyd said, “The Law Society is very disappointed that the LSC has chosen to send the contract to firms without first discussing the terms with the profession’s representatives. It is wholly wrong that the profession should be asked to sign up to the transitional scheme without knowing what the endgame is.

“It is vital that firms consider very carefully the likely economic consequences for their practices of signing the contract. By taking on cases under these fee schemes, solicitors will be guaranteeing to provide a proper professional service to their client for the fee on offer. If you do not think you can do that, you must not sign the contract.

“When making their decision, firms should bear in mind that as this contract lasts for only six months, the LSC has committed itself to holding a further bid round for contracts from July 2008, which like this bid round will be open to all firms regardless of whether they then hold a current criminal contract.

“We will be giving further advice to the profession once we have had a chance to consider all the implications, including seeking guidance from the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority about practitioners’ professional obligations. To this end, we are arranging a national meeting for criminal practitioners at Methodist Hall, Westminster on 23rd October. Practitioners may feel it would be helpful to await that advice before making their decision whether to sign the contract.”