header-logo header-logo

Legal aid contracts delayed

14 August 2009
Issue: 7382 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

The tendering date for civil and criminal legal aid contracts has been pushed back six months to October 2010 to give the Legal Services Commission (LSC) time to finalise arrangements.

Richard Miller, Law Society head of legal aid says: “While it is disappointing for those family practitioners who were anxious to secure harmonised advocacy rates at the earliest possible opportunity, it has become clear that the LSC was unable to finish redrafting the contracts, resolve the issue of selection criteria for allocating contracts, or to finalise the tendering requirements.”

Issue: 7382 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll