header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Questions raised over tendering plans

Legal Services

A consultation on the principles of best value tendering (BVT) for criminal defence services, and a policy paper—Assuring and Improving Quality in the Reformed Legal Aid System—have been published by the Legal Services Commission (LSC).

The paper considers three options for the provision of criminal legal aid services: to continue to set prices administratively; switch to a national public defender system; or move to BVT—the option the LSC favours. Tendering would take place from January 2009 in Avon and Greater Manchester, followed by a further three phases from January 2010 to  January 2011, the latter two of which would include crown court work.

Contracting in the first phase would cover police station and magistrates’ court work. The two would be linked, possibly by having a single fee for any case of either type, or by asking firms to bid against a matrix. The LSC proposes to consult on a single fee for crown court cases this year.

Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, says that moving to a competitive market for the majority of services is the right way forward.

“BVT would set sustainable prices and achieve the best possible value for the legal aid budget while ensuring quality advice for legal aid clients. This will benefit clients, reassure taxpayers and ensure that the market sets the price for providers’ services,” she says.

However, Law Society president Andrew Holroyd says several questions about how BVT could operate in the legal aid world remain unanswered in this consultation.

“The LSC must tell us, for example: how firms can tender when volume cannot be guaranteed; how solicitors can tender for multiple contracts to businesses that will be competing against each other; how the LSC will ensure that BME [black and minority ethnic] firms are treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner; and, fundamentally, how firms can offer a rational bid when the government keeps changing the criminal justice system,” he says. “If the LSC cannot answer these questions but presses on with BVT, the society is concerned that the firms they need to provide the service will be driven out of legal aid and it will be impossible to rebuild the supplier base,” he adds.

The BVT consultation runs until 3 March 2008.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll