header-logo header-logo

LSC backs down in duty solicitor battle

27 April 2007
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has agreed to extend its consultation exercise on planned changes to the way duty solicitor slots are allocated following threats of legal action by the Law Society.

The society issued a pre-action protocol letter to the LSC challenging the way it is consulting on changes to the original plans to award duty solicitor slots to law firms as part of its market stability measures.

A society spokeswoman says that before Easter, the LSC decided to change the new basis for duty solicitor rota allocations for 2007–08. Having decided on one option for doing this in February, it then decided to propose an alternative option and planned to allow just two weeks to consult with representative bodies.

“Following pressure from the Law Society, the LSC has conceded that its recent proposal for a further, brief consultation on market stability measures was seriously flawed. It will now conduct a full and proper consultation on the matter,” she adds.
Derek Hill, director of the Criminal Defence Service at the LSC says: “In keeping with requests from the Law Society, we will be writing to providers to ask their opinion about methods to allocate duty slots up until October. Therefore, we are extending our current consultation exercise until 17 May.”

This means, he says, that until at least the end of June duty slots will continue to be allocated on the current rotas. The old duty solicitor arrangements will apply until then.

Meanwhile, the society claimed another victory last week when the government announced plans to retain the current small claims limits of £1,000 for personal injury and housing disrepair claims.

Society chief executive, Desmond Hudson, says: “I’m pleased the government has accepted the evidence in the Law Society’s ‘Fast and Fair’ campaign that an increase in the small claims limit for personal injury cases would deprive many people injured as a result of someone else’s negligence of compensation. We agree with the government that the right approach is to improve the process for dealing with lower value cases rather than depriving people of help from a solicitor.”

The government is also proposing an increase to the fast track limit to £25,000 and the introduction of a streamlined claims process for personal injury claims under £25,000.
 

Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll