News
The war of words between the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the Law Society moved up a notch this week as the application process for new criminal contracts was announced.
The society attacked the LSC for starting the process—which will see lawyers vying for six-month contracts to provide criminal defence services—without proper consultation.
The LSC will send out the paperwork next week and firms will be given until 31 October 2007 to sign and return the contract, which will take effect from 14 January 2008. There will be a further contracting round next July, when firms without a contract can apply.
Society president Andrew Holroyd says: “It is wholly wrong that the profession should be asked to sign up to the transitional scheme without knowing what the end-game is.”
He says firms must consider the likely economic consequences for their practices of signing: “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.”
He says the society will give further advice to the profession once it has considered the implications, including seeking guidance from the Solicitors Regulation Authority about practitioners’ professional obligations.
To this end, a national meeting for criminal practitioners at Methodist Hall, Westminster is planned for 23 October. “Practitioners may feel it would be helpful to await that advice before making their decision whether to sign the contract,” he adds.
Tuckers partner Andrew Keogh is also critical of the LSC, claiming this announcement contradicts one made only a few days ago.He feels, however, that the Law Society’s increasing stridency isn’t helping matters.
“The legal aid reform process is being run in a way that would shame a banana republic and discredits the LSC.
“Matters are not helped by a war of words between the LSC and the Law Society that is getting increasingly bitter. Both sides need to grow up and remember that these reforms affect real people with mortgages to pay,” he adds.
Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, says: “The LSC would rather not have to issue these short-term contracts, but we believe it is necessary due to the uncertainty created by the recent judgment in the unified contract judicial review brought by the Law Society.”
The LSC is appealing the judgment in R (on the application of the Law Society) v Legal Services Commission, which it believes misinterprets some aspects of EU and domestic procurement law.
