header-logo header-logo

13 April 2007
Issue: 7268 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Fight over unified contracts to continue

A Law Society plan to obtain a last-minute injunction to stay introduction of the unified legal aid contract has been dropped after counsel advised there were no grounds for such an application.

The society has now pledged to continue to concentrate on its judicial review application which aims to remove the Legal Service Commission’s (LSC’s) unilateral right to amend the contract.

Although 95% of law firms and 98% of not-for-profit agencies had signed the unified legal aid contract by the extended 2 April deadline, the society insists that solicitors will continue to fight the destruction of legal aid.

In a statement it says: “It remains to be seen how the LSC will repair the immense damage to its relationships with suppliers. The LSC’s high dependency on the dedication of legal aid firms makes it imperative that it starts listening to their concerns.”
However, LSC chief executive Carolyn Regan says the high level of firms signing up for the contract means clients can be confident of continued access to civil legal aid services.

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll