SITE BLOG
The thoughts and opinions here are mine and are not necessarily ones you will agree with!
| INDEX |
| Legally Tender |
| The Final Cut |
| Other Views and Documents |
| Whats Worse Than PCT? |
| Competititve Tendering |
--------------------- *** ---------------------
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On Monday 525 contracts will have been confirmed and the world will soon be a very different place.
So here it is,
Merry Tendering,
Everybodys having fun.
So lets look to the future,
It's only just begun!
Merry Tendering,
Everybodys having fun.
So lets look to the future,
It's only just begun!
We are all in for a bumpy ride over the next few months as we try to come to terms with how the new contracts will affect reps, solicitors and firms. It's still early days so much of this article is nothing more than educated guess work. But we have enough solid information to give it a whirl.
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE
First and foremost, despite persistent, silly rumours to the contrary: the position for reps remains unchanged. The firms can still use reps. The firms can still use as many reps as they want. Forget what you have heard down the pub - reps are still in business. Indeed the contractual position under the new contracts is exactly the same as it was under the current one. You do not need to be a delivery partner. You do not need an own client contract. Reps remain free to be be instructed. No limits, no quotas, no problems.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The tendering process, much to everyone's amazement, has come to a conclusion. The MOJ in all their wisdom have pressed ahead and announced the winners and losers. 525 duty contracts were awarded. Since there are only 1,600 criminal firms there are way more losers than winners. The full list of winners and losers should be published by the MOJ soon. But it is already apparent that some firms have done better than others.
Some firms have clearly been very smart and have managed to increase their market share whilst others have simply failed to win anything at all. The interesting firms to watch are the members of the Big Firms Group. For example it would appear at this early stage that TV Edwards have doubled in size whilst Kaim Todner are out of the game. Tuckers look like they will dominate the market without any obvious way to challenge them.
But the full list of winners will be almost as interesting as the list of losers. All of it will be public soon enough so there is no need to simply gossip here. As soon as its all in the public domain we will of course publish the lists but its going to be a list tinged with some real sadness at the plight of the firms that have lost out.
Although there are 525 tenders available we strongly suspect that there will be only 220 firms filling all the slots. That means that there will be around 1,400 firms who will be without a duty contract. They will be trying but failing to survive. Many are going to diversify into different areas of law but sadly many will simply not be able to survive. That means a huge number of solicitors are going to be out of work.
We all have a list at the back of our minds of those firms that we simply do not like. It may be that they pay us slowly or they are just difficult people to work for. Gloating over a bad paying firm as they squirm because they did not win a tender maybe something to revel in for a moment. But don't get caught up in a festival of schadenfreude. Watching a respected firm full of friendly, talented, dedicated staff being read the last rites will be heartbreaking.
Some firms are certainly under the impression that they will be able to continue regardless with own client work. I am very sceptical that they will be able to do that long term. The duty firms will very quickly take their best staff and the clients will desert the sinking ships.
For the reps there will be a cushion. The own client firms will continue into the new year. They will soften what is sure to be a bumpy uncertain ride in the short term. The own client firms will need reps more than ever as they start to diminish in size and shed staff.
GOVE v GRAYLING
But could the new contracts be stopped at this late stage? No one thought it would go this far. It has always
been assumed that this would never happen. Kaim Todner and a large number of other firms are certainly going to
take the MOJ to court but in my humble opinion they can do no more than delay the inevitable by a month or so.The furious firms group could easily win a Judicial Review but Michael Gove can ignore that and
carry on regardless. The real question is will Gove stop the process? He is the only one who can.Good as gold,
or stupid as mud,
carry on regardless.
or stupid as mud,
carry on regardless.
There is a chance that he will halt the whole thing.
He has overturned much of the damage done by Grayling.
Indeed he has been at some pains to stop and reverse just about all of Chris Grayling's reforms. All of them except
Legal Aid tendering that is.
We have said hello to the new boss, Michael Gove but he is not the same as the old boss.Michael Gove has so far reversed Chris Grayling's ban on books in prison, secure colleges for teenage prisoners, the Saudi Arabian prison building contract as well as stalling the proposed abolition of the Human Rights Act and the introduction of a new Bill of Rights. He looks like he will be reining in the court charges introduced under Grayling as well.
But it is worth noting that Gove has extended the court closure programme. He is pretty new in his post
so his thinking on Legal Aid tendering is anyone's guess. He proved hugely unpopular as the Education Minister but
David Cameron kept him in the cabinet. He has form and has been hard at it. To make the guessing game even tougher
he is effectively in a job share with the hugely ambitious leadership candidate Teresa May. But that is all politics
and who can fathom the motives of a Minister?But to answer the question: will this go ahead? The answer seems to be a YES. There is very little reason to think that Michael Gove will stop the process now. If he was of a mind to stop it he would have done it already.
THE FUTURE FOR REPS
The future is of course pretty precarious. There is no need to panic just yet though. There are no guarantees. Its a horrible Americanism to say there will be significant challenges but it is for once an accurate description. Numerous issues arise and there really are big problems with no obvious solutions.
First off you will probably have to find a new supervising solicitor. Your current supervisor will be out of work. Its not a biggie but it is worth bearing in mind.
Secondly, there are going to be changes. You need to read the new contract and get to know it well. Some of the new contract terms are going to be very difficult. For example we will need to attend all ID Captures. Oh, what fun that will be. Most significantly there will be two police station rates, £200 in London and £159 in the rest of England and Wales.
The rates are going to be the biggest hurdle. The firms will put you under huge pressure to drop your prices and on top of that there are going to be a huge number of new reps on the market. Its supply and demand. There will be more reps than ever. There are something like 2,000 qualified reps at the present time. About half of them are acting as independent reps. But there are 5,000 duty solicitors and most if not all of them are going to be out of work. Many will attempt to become reps. This web site has seen a large increase in membership over the last few weeks and months. The rate of people joining the site is also on the increase. Rates are coming down and competition is on a trajectory the like of which we have never seen before.
The final, obvious problem is the new contract itself. Even today the firms are by and large ignorant of the General Criminal Contract terms. If many do not understand the current contract what hope have we in the future?
As sure as eggs is eggs the firms will not understand the new contract. Some of the firms who have won one of the new duty contracts are under the false impression that they have to do everything in house. They do not have to it in house. The position of reps does not change. But that's the idea they have in their heads and its going to take time for them to properly understand the new contracts. Who would have thought that solicitors would be so bad at understanding contracts? But they are hopeless at reading contracts. They gave up long ago. They are punch drunk from endless changes over the years.
There is an issue though with the way the contracts were drafted. The winning firms have signed up to a pretty onerous deal. The MOJ has stipulated how many employees a firm must have. Their income will dictate staffing levels. By any reckoning they will be overstaffed. The obvious thing to do with staff who are kicking their heels in the office is to send them out to the police station.
DUTY SOLICITORS & HOW TO PROTEST
Currently the Duty Solicitors given duty clients. The DSCC call them not the firms. They command salaries which reflect their ability to bring business to their firm. That is over. Under the new contracts the firms will own the duty clients. Duty solicitors will no longer be worth as much. To be brutal, they will all be sacked. A winning firm will have no choice but to ask them to apply for their own jobs. Those jobs will have lower salaries. The firms will be sued by the duty soliucitors under TUPE but that is almost irrelevant. They will have no choice but to let the vast majority of duty Solicitors go. The duty solicitors will have to either sue or take jobs on lower wages. Its not going to be pretty.
There is, therefore, a unique protest open to the duty solicitors in particular and all the staff in a winning firm in general. I am not the first to point this out. The firms have bid for contracts. The MOJ have awarded the contracts. But the firms have bid on the basis that they can handle all the work that is coming their way. They told the MOJ that they have sufficient staff. The firms assumed that thier staff will stay with them into the new year. That is quite a leap. They will have to sack the lot of them.
Clearly any winning firm must be very scared of their own in house duty solicitors. In fact they should be scared of all their staff as the tenders assume that all the in house staff will remain in post. All the staff and solicitors have to do is write and sign a simple letter to the MOJ pointing out that they will not be working for the winning firm in the new year. The letter would point out to the MOJ that the tender should be reassessed in the light of a lack of willing staff. Over the next few months the MOJ will be auditing the firms who won contracts to ensure that they can provide the cover they have been awarded. A simple letter from the firms in house staff will scupper the audit.
Whilst its doubtful the staff inside a firm would put the boot in, the staff have a big stick to beat the firms or the government with. The recent strike was a dismal failure and the proposed boycott of the tender process fizzled out with predictable speed. But a mutiny inside a significant number of firms would sink the tendering process.
WHY
Its a sensible time to ask why this is happening. But the sensible answer is not all that obvious. Its not really about money as the government has already imposed significant cuts. To my mind its about power. The smaller number of firms the more power government has over the criminal defence industry.
Why is this happening? Because it is.
THE FIRMS
So is it all doom and gloom? Hell, no! There is light at the end of the tunnel. It will take time for things to settle into place. On the upside there will still be cops and robbers so there will still be police interviews under caution. There will always be a role for reps. Its just a time of change.
The firms that survive will do well. The market will continue to consolidate. The firms that survive will by and large experience growth. There will be teething troubles but there is still a career in Criminal Law. Smart partners are going to be able to acquire a huge stake in the market. Some are going to make a vast amount of money. Give it a few years and there will be fewer firms but those firms will be much, much bigger.
The smartest firms will be able to manage this transitional period. The TUPE regulations are going to be a bit of a pain. But even that is not insurmountable. Staff can be managed out of post pretty easily and if the worst comes to the worst the starting point for compenstation under TUPE is only 13 weeks wages, capped at one year's salary. The firms should do very well indeed. The biggest challenge the firms face is the criminal contract itself. They will have to lobby the MOJ to ensure that the most draconian terms of the contract are dropped.
For the firms though it could be a golden age. For the reps it will be a bit tougher as the market settles down. But the position for reps is unchanged. The firms can use as many independent reps as they want.
This is not the end of the world. This is the start of something new.
The views in this and the blogs below are of course those of the author. Its all guess work really as we don't have a crystal ball. We could be wrong. Your views are most welcome of course. Feel free to get in touch.
CLICK HERE TO SEND eMAIL
This was written on 19th October 2015.
--------------------- *** ---------------------
On 27th February the Government published its final plans for the future of Criminal Legal Aid.
Here are the headlines:
In earlier blogs I have ranted and raved about the insanity of it all. Since this is happening there is little point railing against the Moon. So lets look at the practicalities of all this.
What does it all mean for you?
REPS
It could have been worse. Far worse. This is a soft landing for reps. You will have to find a new career but not just yet. The new system comes into force in June 2015 and it will take time for the surviving firms to adjust.
The firms will sack their staff sooner rather than later so you can expect an upturn in business until June 2015. But even that will have to be offset against an increase in the number of reps coming into the market. With massive redundancies many former in-house solicitors are going to give independent rep work a go. Rates will therefore come under even more pressure.
After the new contracts come into force you are probably going to experience a rapid downturn. Not long after that you will probably not see any work at all.
In the short term fees will be cut so expect the firms to ask you to cut your rates before the 8.5% cuts arrive. That has been happening anyway. If you have not cut your fees then you should do so immediately.
The imminent major problem is that many firms are likely to close sooner rather than later. Most firms are heavily indebted to the banks. They have big overdrafts. The banks are not daft and are aware of what is happening. They will call in the loans. Many firms will hit the wall.
Some of the reps will survive of course but the simple fact is that the firms will not support the current market numbers. The new fees are tough. Its going to be challenging, particularly outside London with only £156 to play with. If you survive though you will be busy. Rates will do down dramatically but you will be dealing with a much larger volume of cases. But that will not last forever.
DUTY SOLICITORS
You will be sacked and soon. The firms pay you because you have a Duty slot. That is being taken away from you. You are now too expensive.
There is no point being a Duty Solicitor. The only hope you have is to obtain Higher Rights. The Criminal Bar is about to collapse. All the advocacy is going in-house. If you do not fancy being a Crown Court advocate then get out now.
Of course some solicitors are still going to be needed. But the numbers will drop significantly. Work loads will increase and pay will plummet.
POLICE & COURTS
The courts will have to change the way they work and no doubt they will. The judiciary have not been involved in the process leading up to these changes but they have made their thoughts known publicly at every stage. The police by contrast have been worryingly quiet. The police are going to be forced by these reforms to change the way they operate.
It is possible the boys in blue have been quiet; deliberately, diplomatically staying above the political fray. It is equally possible they are simply unaware of the effect this is all going to have on the way they operate. We deal with police all day long. Perhaps somewhat cynically, we think it is worryingly likely that trained detectives, schooled in the art of deduction are going to be somewhat surprised in June 2015!
OWN CLIENT CONTRACTS
Own client contracts will not save your firm. Some solicitors have a following. That is going to be handy. But it will not be of much use for very long. As the bigger firms consolidate and grow they will tempt away any solicitors you have along with their following.
On top of that the Law Society will steadily increase the oversight, supervision and all the daft requirements you will have to meet to carry on trading. It will be a slow death.
DUTY CLIENT CONTRACTS
Most firms are going to hit the wall. But if you can grab a duty client contract then you will of course survive and even prosper. The deal is a good one even with the cut in fees. But you will have to change the way you work.
The problem you face is that there is a very limited number of contracts particularly outside London. It will only take a handful of national entities to emerge for the vast bulk of the slots to simply disappear. One national firm bidding in every area successfully would take 85 slots or 16% of the total available. It only takes four national players to ensure that small players will simply have no chance at all by seizing 65% of the business. In our view there could be around 20 big, big bids.
In fact small firms will only really exist in Manchester, Yorkshire, Birmingham and Lancashire. Some might try to make it work in Central London and Brent but the numbers make it hard to see how they could turn a profit.
Big is most certainly going to be better. Make a bid but make it a big one: apply for as many areas as you possibly can. Make no mistake that is what the government want.
Your staffing costs are going to go down. You can outsource just about everything (forget the 25% in-house clause its unenforceable and easily side-stepped). Opening 53 offices will not take all that long and its the only real hurdle that the new contract will impose. Office space is cheap and solicitors are about to become very cheap and rather desperate.
So long as you can raise the capital to get started you can clean up. Of course you will have to appear in front of the inevitable select committee but in all likelihood you will get a knighthood too! But getting the backing from a bank to set up a big operation is not going to be easy. Not easy at all.
The table below details how the police station matters all get carved up.
| AREA | SLOTS | VOLUME | RATE | CASES PER FIRM | VALUE PER FIRM |
| Nottinghamshire | 4 | 14,133 | £156.19 | 3,533 | £551,858 |
| Leicestershire | 4 | 11,484 | £156.19 | 2,871 | £448,421 |
| Thames Valley | 9 | 24,349 | £156.19 | 2,705 | £422,563 |
| West Midlands | 13 | 34,860 | £156.19 | 2,682 | £418,829 |
| Humberside | 5 | 12,661 | £156.19 | 2,532 | £395,504 |
| Essex | 7 | 17,498 | £156.19 | 2,500 | £390,430 |
| Hampshire 2 | 4 | 9,857 | £156.19 | 2,464 | £384,891 |
| Cleveland | 4 | 9,849 | £156.19 | 2,462 | £384,579 |
| Kent | 7 | 16,609 | £156.19 | 2,373 | £370,594 |
| Durham | 7 | 16,149 | £156.19 | 2,307 | £360,330 |
| Hertfordshire | 5 | 11,484 | £156.19 | 2,297 | £358,737 |
| South Wales | 9 | 19,839 | £156.19 | 2,204 | £344,295 |
| Devon and Cornwall 2 | 4 | 8,686 | £156.19 | 2,172 | £339,167 |
| Greater Manchester | 17 | 36,443 | £156.19 | 2,144 | £334,825 |
| Merseyside | 8 | 17,031 | £156.19 | 2,129 | £332,509 |
| South Yorkshire | 7 | 14,728 | £156.19 | 2,104 | £328,624 |
| Cheshire | 7 | 14,447 | £156.19 | 2,064 | £322,354 |
| Sussex 1 | 5 | 10,173 | £156.19 | 2,035 | £317,784 |
| Sussex 2 | 5 | 10,173 | £156.19 | 2,035 | £317,784 |
| West Yorkshire | 17 | 34,041 | £156.19 | 2,002 | £312,757 |
| Derbyshire | 5 | 9,849 | £156.19 | 1,970 | £307,663 |
| Staffordshire | 6 | 11,537 | £156.19 | 1,923 | £300,327 |
| Gloucestershire | 4 | 7,482 | £156.19 | 1,871 | £292,153 |
| Lancashire | 13 | 21,987 | £156.19 | 1,691 | £264,165 |
| Surrey | 4 | 6,477 | £156.19 | 1,619 | £252,911 |
| Bedfordshire | 5 | 8,001 | £156.19 | 1,600 | £249,935 |
| Northamptonshire | 5 | 7,939 | £156.19 | 1,588 | £247,998 |
| Avon and Somerset 1 | 5 | 7,482 | £156.19 | 1,496 | £233,723 |
| Avon and Somerset 2 | 5 | 7,482 | £156.19 | 1,496 | £233,723 |
| Lincolnshire | 5 | 7,334 | £156.19 | 1,467 | £229,099 |
| Hampshire 1 | 7 | 9,857 | £156.19 | 1,408 | £219,938 |
| Wiltshire | 5 | 6,978 | £156.19 | 1,396 | £217,979 |
| Dorset | 5 | 6,681 | £156.19 | 1,336 | £208,701 |
| Cambridgeshire | 7 | 9,197 | £156.19 | 1,314 | £205,211 |
| Warwickshire | 4 | 4,836 | £156.19 | 1,209 | £188,834 |
| West Mercia 2 | 4 | 4,836 | £156.19 | 1,209 | £188,834 |
| Northumbria 1 | 5 | 5,834 | £156.19 | 1,167 | £182,242 |
| Devon and Cornwall 1 | 8 | 8,686 | £156.19 | 1,086 | £169,583 |
| Norfolk 1 | 4 | 4,102 | £156.19 | 1,026 | £160,173 |
| Norfolk 2 | 4 | 4,102 | £156.19 | 1,026 | £160,173 |
| North Yorkshire 1 | 4 | 3,911 | £156.19 | 978 | £152,715 |
| North Yorkshire 2 | 4 | 3,911 | £156.19 | 978 | £152,715 |
| West Mercia 1 | 5 | 4,836 | £156.19 | 967 | £151,067 |
| North Wales 1 | 4 | 3,619 | £156.19 | 905 | £141,313 |
| North Wales 2 | 4 | 3,619 | £156.19 | 905 | £141,313 |
| Northumbria 2 | 7 | 5,834 | £156.19 | 833 | £130,173 |
| Gwent | 5 | 4,024 | £156.19 | 805 | £125,702 |
| Dyfed-Powys 1 | 4 | 2,601 | £156.19 | 650 | £101,563 |
| Dyfed-Powys 2 | 4 | 2,601 | £156.19 | 650 | £101,563 |
| Cumbria 1 | 4 | 2,400 | £156.19 | 600 | £93,714 |
| Cumbria 2 | 4 | 2,400 | £156.19 | 600 | £93,714 |
| Suffolk 1 | 4 | 2,274 | £156.19 | 569 | £88,794 |
| Suffolk 2 | 4 | 2,274 | £156.19 | 569 | £88,794 |
| LONDON | |||||
| AREA | SLOTS | VOLUME | RATE | CASES PER FIRM | VALUE PER FIRM |
| Richmond-upon-Thames | 4 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 1,391 | £279,443 |
| Kingston-upon-Thames | 4 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 1,391 | £279,443 |
| South London | 5 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 1,113 | £223,555 |
| Sutton | 5 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 1,113 | £223,555 |
| Bexley | 5 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 1,113 | £223,555 |
| Havering | 4 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 988 | £198,519 |
| Enfield | 4 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 988 | £198,519 |
| Heathrow | 4 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 894 | £179,682 |
| Wimbledon | 7 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 795 | £159,682 |
| Greenwich/Woolwich | 7 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 795 | £159,682 |
| Croydon | 7 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 795 | £159,682 |
| Uxbridge | 5 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 790 | £158,815 |
| Harrow | 5 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 790 | £158,815 |
| Hendon/Barnet | 5 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 790 | £158,815 |
| Barking | 5 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 790 | £158,815 |
| Redbridge | 5 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 790 | £158,815 |
| West London | 5 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 715 | £143,745 |
| Ealing | 5 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 715 | £143,745 |
| Brentford | 5 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 715 | £143,745 |
| Camberwell Green | 5 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 715 | £143,745 |
| Bishopsgate | 5 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 715 | £143,745 |
| Bromley | 8 | 5,563 | £200.93 | 695 | £139,722 |
| Thames | 7 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 511 | £102,675 |
| Waltham Forest | 9 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 439 | £88,231 |
| Newham | 9 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 439 | £88,231 |
| Harringey | 9 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 439 | £88,231 |
| Tower Bridge | 9 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 397 | £79,859 |
| Old Street | 9 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 397 | £79,859 |
| Highbury Corner | 9 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 397 | £79,859 |
| Clerkenwell/Hampstead | 9 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 397 | £79,859 |
| Brent | 11 | 3,952 | £200.93 | 359 | £72,189 |
| Central London | 15 | 3,577 | £200.93 | 238 | £47,915 |
| 525 | 685,940 | 110,133 | £18,258,087 | ||
The above table does come with a few caveats:
| 1. | The numbers assume that any firm with a Duty Contract will get an equal share of all the own client work. That will happen but it will take a bit of time for the own client only firms to fold. | |
| 2. | Sussex, Devon, Hampshire and some other areas (including the whole of London) have been split into several areas. We have assumed that the split will be even. Those figures are therefore a rough approximation but will not be far off the mark except in Hampshire 2. | |
| 3. | Hampshire 2 is the Isle of Wight only. Clearly there is no point having a franchise there. It somewhat exposes the insanity of these proposals that there will be four criminal firms on the Isle of Wight fighting over around 100 cases per annum. But it does mean that Hampshire 1 is very attractive indeed. | |
| 4. | The figures are exclusive of VAT. Travel and disbursements will be payable on top. Escape Fees will still be available but there is no indication as to whether double fees will still exist. | |
| 5. | It is worth pointing out that crime is on a downward trend at present. It is perhaps counter-intuitive but crime tends to go down at a time of economic depression. Crime will rise as the economy recovers. | |
| 6. | The Public Defender Service will be assigned an equal share of duty slots in the areas in which it is already established, Gloucestershire, Durham, South Wales and North Yorkshire 1. The PDS will also be eligible to conduct Own Client Work anywhere in England and Wales. |
 |
You can wade through the full document here. Just click on the image and the document will open in a new window. Failing that you can get a copy of "Transforming Legal Aid - Next Steps" here too. | |
--------------------- *** ---------------------
Documents:
Law Society - Alternative Proposal
MoJ - The Proposals
House of Commons Library - The Proposals
Otterburn Report
Further Reading:
Law Society - LibDems Vote to Oppose Cuts
Law Society - LCCSA Vote
Law Society - Grayling to Press On
Lord McNally - Cutting Costs, Not Fair Trials
TV Edwards - Alternative Proposals
Robert Hardy-McBride - Open Letter to the President of TLS
Dan Bunting - Open Letter
Oliver Howard - Hysteria
Barrister999 - Where Now?
Hansard - Geoffrey Cox MP
Select committee - Chris Grayling
Law Society - Client Choice Returns
Dan Bunting - To Bid or Not to Bid
Ripped Off Briton - Legal Aid Bill Falling
Lord McNally - The Need for Reform
The Independent - Astonishing Stuff
The Justice Gap - Defence and Economics
Law Society - Nick Clegg Cabinet Split
Daily Mail - Yuppy Beady Eyed Crowd
Daily Mail - Fat Cat List
Evening Standard - Cuts Protect NHS
Mitch Benn - There are Things Worth Rioting About
Paul Gilbert - Alternative View
Tim Forte - Response
Hansard - Legal Aid Questions
Clive Stafford Smith - Rally Speech
LCCSA - MoJ Moving Goalposts
The Mirror - 8 Reasons to Back Lawyers
The Guardian - Objection Sustained
Sadiq Khan - State Sponsored Miscarriages
John Cooper QC - You Tube Campaign Video
Law Society - Chris Grayling Interview
Human Rights Blog - Breach of Art 6
Steven Bird - Open Letter
The Intigrant - Open Letter
The Guardian - The Dash for Purple
Hansard - House of Lords Speech (Baroness Deech)
The Independent - Rupert Myers Blog
Criminal Bar Association - Speeches (incl Dan Bunting)
Hansard - House of Lords Speech (Lord Thomas)
The Guardian - Dave Rowntree (Blur's Drummer)
The Economist - Too Poor to be Defended
BBC Question Time - Jerry Hayes (Skip to 52:15)
Early Day Motion No 36
Charters Chambers - Open Letter
The Lawyer - Less than Sewage Workers
The Guardian - Will it Work?
Law Society - Sadiq Khan MP (Shadow Lord Chancellor)
The Times - Letter from Academics
Law Society - Firms Snub Contracts
Law Society - Unlawful & Unworkable
Law Society Gazette - Stobart to Bid
BBC - Petition
Max Hardy - Convicting the Guilty
BBC - The Wales Report
Jerry Hayes - The End of the Bar
The Independant - End of Justice for All
Michael Turner - Speech to the Criminal Bar Association
Roger Smith - The Challenge
New Statesman - All Round Stupid Proposal
Coherence - On Standards
Olliers - The Ratner Moment
Dan Bunting - A Tax on Innocence
Dan Bunting - Calculating Crown Court Fees
Olliers - Dear Mr Grayling Funny Letter
Bunting et al - Write to Your MP
Barrrister999 - Hiding the Truth
The Express - Firms to Close
Johnny Void - Chris Grayling, Compulsive Liar
Campaigns:
Facebook Campaign
Protest Summary Page
Twitter - #SaveUKJustice
Law Society - Alternative Proposal
MoJ - The Proposals
House of Commons Library - The Proposals
Otterburn Report
Further Reading:
Law Society - LibDems Vote to Oppose Cuts
Law Society - LCCSA Vote
Law Society - Grayling to Press On
Lord McNally - Cutting Costs, Not Fair Trials
TV Edwards - Alternative Proposals
Robert Hardy-McBride - Open Letter to the President of TLS
Dan Bunting - Open Letter
Oliver Howard - Hysteria
Barrister999 - Where Now?
Hansard - Geoffrey Cox MP
Select committee - Chris Grayling
Law Society - Client Choice Returns
Dan Bunting - To Bid or Not to Bid
Ripped Off Briton - Legal Aid Bill Falling
Lord McNally - The Need for Reform
The Independent - Astonishing Stuff
The Justice Gap - Defence and Economics
Law Society - Nick Clegg Cabinet Split
Daily Mail - Yuppy Beady Eyed Crowd
Daily Mail - Fat Cat List
Evening Standard - Cuts Protect NHS
Mitch Benn - There are Things Worth Rioting About
Paul Gilbert - Alternative View
Tim Forte - Response
Hansard - Legal Aid Questions
Clive Stafford Smith - Rally Speech
LCCSA - MoJ Moving Goalposts
The Mirror - 8 Reasons to Back Lawyers
The Guardian - Objection Sustained
Sadiq Khan - State Sponsored Miscarriages
John Cooper QC - You Tube Campaign Video
Law Society - Chris Grayling Interview
Human Rights Blog - Breach of Art 6
Steven Bird - Open Letter
The Intigrant - Open Letter
The Guardian - The Dash for Purple
Hansard - House of Lords Speech (Baroness Deech)
The Independent - Rupert Myers Blog
Criminal Bar Association - Speeches (incl Dan Bunting)
Hansard - House of Lords Speech (Lord Thomas)
The Guardian - Dave Rowntree (Blur's Drummer)
The Economist - Too Poor to be Defended
BBC Question Time - Jerry Hayes (Skip to 52:15)
Early Day Motion No 36
Charters Chambers - Open Letter
The Lawyer - Less than Sewage Workers
The Guardian - Will it Work?
Law Society - Sadiq Khan MP (Shadow Lord Chancellor)
The Times - Letter from Academics
Law Society - Firms Snub Contracts
Law Society - Unlawful & Unworkable
Law Society Gazette - Stobart to Bid
BBC - Petition
Max Hardy - Convicting the Guilty
BBC - The Wales Report
Jerry Hayes - The End of the Bar
The Independant - End of Justice for All
Michael Turner - Speech to the Criminal Bar Association
Roger Smith - The Challenge
New Statesman - All Round Stupid Proposal
Coherence - On Standards
Olliers - The Ratner Moment
Dan Bunting - A Tax on Innocence
Dan Bunting - Calculating Crown Court Fees
Olliers - Dear Mr Grayling Funny Letter
Bunting et al - Write to Your MP
Barrrister999 - Hiding the Truth
The Express - Firms to Close
Johnny Void - Chris Grayling, Compulsive Liar
Campaigns:
Facebook Campaign
Protest Summary Page
Twitter - #SaveUKJustice
--------------------- *** ---------------------
The Lord Chancellor has dumped client choice. Way back when the MoJ first released its consultation
document I predicted that client choice would be maintained. Back then I believed it was put in the document
solely to create a focus for any protest. It proved to be the focus of the protest and now Chris Grayling
has conceded the point. Client choice will remain.
But I really do not want to wear my 'I Told You So' T Shirt. I can understand that the No To PCT campaign focused on this issue. But the Law Society, who should know better, also took the same line and has now released its own proposal. Its aim is to save client choice. It does that but manages to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In summary the Law Society propose that the Firms will acquire the duty slots and will have to have a minimum number of CLAS or Lexcel qualified staff. That number will increase over time forcing firms to increase in size. Moreover the Law Society will have the firms doing 95% of all the work in-house. At first glance that is a disaster for the industry. But on closer scrutiny its the Law Society selling us down the river.
The focus of the campaign has been, client choice and quality. The Law Society proposals will murder both even quicker than PCT hoped to. But the biggest fear has been redundancy and the Law Society will pretty much kill us all off better than any blood soaked teen horror movie.
At present duty solicitors earn a living because they own the Duty Slots. Naturally, the big firms have been campaigning to break that link for years. Once the firms own the Duty Slots they will have no use for the duty solicitors. Redundancy is then inevitable. Your job has gone. Wages will simply tumble to the bottom.
Firms will still need solicitors but wages will be driven off the cliff.
The Law Society notes that most firms are very small. No wonder really. Small firms are more efficient than big firms. Under the proposals the firms will have to have 2 'quality' qualified solicitors and then three. They will want that figure increased year on year. Hold on, wait a minute, isn't that the expensive, pointless CLAS quality thing we are all opposed to?
The Law Society says "the contracting process could drive consolidation in the market. The current market is highly fragmented but certainty of contractual obligations combined with support from the Law Society and LAA would drive consolidation". That gobbledegook means that the firms will reduce in number and increase in size. Its PCT just a bit slower.
Just to be clear when they say 'merge' they mean close and the Law Society propose several ideas to 'facilitate market exit for those wishing to leave. Well thank you, Lucy Moncrief! Even by their own figures the Law Soc proposals will force 1200 firms to close or 'merge'. That figure of 1200 is vaguely familiar. Where have we heard that before? Rather than 400 firms at the outset in 2014, its designed to reduce the market to 400 firms by 2015.
There is a good reason that only 3 firms have more than 50 duty solicitors. There is a good reason why 80% of the firms have less than 5 duty solicitors. The reason is simply that there are no economies of scale in an industry that provides expert advice on a person to person basis. We don't make widgets so having bulk does not create savings. It did not work for accountancy and for all the same reasons it will not work for criminal law.
The only way large firms can make savings is by slashing the cost of the qualified experts who provide that one to one advice. Break the link between the duty slots and the experts and you give the biggest firms the power to slash wages.
What about quality? Well its back to the lowest fees argument. Rather than bidding for low priced contracts the firms will be given a buyers market where there will be mass redundancies, closures and wages that will simply bottom out. Only the cheapest advocates will be employed. Goodbye quality.
The Law Society makes no mention of fees and money. They only accept that savings have to be made and seem to think they will find savings of £200m in this proposal. Where? I can't find any savings and I actually read the proposals. Twice. Hold on, I will read it again. Nope. Nothing in it.
Its not clear then how this stupid, stupid proposal proposes to save £200m. The Law Society have not bothered to cost any of it out or make any real suggestions. There is nothing here that would actually save money! The only idea they have is a charge on convicted criminals. A sort of victim's surcharge on top of the fees already levied on the convicted. And that brilliant bit of policy, lifted directly from the pages of the Daily Mail will raise a paltry £11m. So that only leaves £190m in savings left for them to find.
They also want more wasted costs orders at a whopping £100 a time. The CPS will pay the defence for delays they cause and the defence will pay the CPS for delays they cause. Brilliant. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So really, what the Law Society are proposing here is to create bigger firms, slash wages, sack the duty solicitors, impose cuts of 20% across the board and close 1,200 firms. Well thanks very much! We have suffered cuts year on year since 1994 and the Law Society is backing 20% in further cuts. God love them.
Far from being a well thought our proposal based on evidence and solid figures its a thinly veiled attempt to kill off the efficient small firms and ruin the already underpaid the criminal solicitors. It will lead to sausage factories of bargain basement advice... hold on, that all sounds a bit too familiar. Isn't that precisely what we were opposed to in the first place?
But its worse, much worse than that. Even Chris Grayling supported outsourcing. But the Law Society is back to banging on about the work being done in-house. This time the figure plucked from thin air is 95%. Why? How have the brilliant independent police station reps upset the Law Society? Why on earth do they think that hard working solicitors should get no sleep, no money and have no future? Reps exist because it was never realistic for firms to do it all in-house. Its not economic and its not sustainable. Give the clients choice but give the firms no choice at all. Forcing the firms to do the work in-house merely puts more pressure on the firms to cut costs to the bone.
The Law Society simply want us to slash wages, create mega firms and have the few remaining solicitors work like dogs. This is a mental proposal. The only alternative offered in this proposal is the word alternative on page one. Its alternative in the same way that Bernard Manning was an alternative comedian and ABBA were an alternative rock band. It isn't an alternative, its the same dumb idea with the word alternative in the title.
One last thought, lifted from the law society's own web page: "The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales... We are here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales."
Doomed, we are all doomed, I tell ye.
Law Society - Alternative Proposal
But I really do not want to wear my 'I Told You So' T Shirt. I can understand that the No To PCT campaign focused on this issue. But the Law Society, who should know better, also took the same line and has now released its own proposal. Its aim is to save client choice. It does that but manages to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Good grief... the Law Society proposal is worse, much worse than PCT!
In summary the Law Society propose that the Firms will acquire the duty slots and will have to have a minimum number of CLAS or Lexcel qualified staff. That number will increase over time forcing firms to increase in size. Moreover the Law Society will have the firms doing 95% of all the work in-house. At first glance that is a disaster for the industry. But on closer scrutiny its the Law Society selling us down the river.
The focus of the campaign has been, client choice and quality. The Law Society proposals will murder both even quicker than PCT hoped to. But the biggest fear has been redundancy and the Law Society will pretty much kill us all off better than any blood soaked teen horror movie.
At present duty solicitors earn a living because they own the Duty Slots. Naturally, the big firms have been campaigning to break that link for years. Once the firms own the Duty Slots they will have no use for the duty solicitors. Redundancy is then inevitable. Your job has gone. Wages will simply tumble to the bottom.
Firms will still need solicitors but wages will be driven off the cliff.
The Law Society notes that most firms are very small. No wonder really. Small firms are more efficient than big firms. Under the proposals the firms will have to have 2 'quality' qualified solicitors and then three. They will want that figure increased year on year. Hold on, wait a minute, isn't that the expensive, pointless CLAS quality thing we are all opposed to?
The Law Society says "the contracting process could drive consolidation in the market. The current market is highly fragmented but certainty of contractual obligations combined with support from the Law Society and LAA would drive consolidation". That gobbledegook means that the firms will reduce in number and increase in size. Its PCT just a bit slower.
| No of Duty Solicitors | No of Firms |
| 1-5 | 1177 |
| 6-10 | 210 |
| 11-15 | 51 |
| 16-29 | 23 |
| 21-30 | 18 |
| 31-40 | 11 |
| 41-50 | 1 |
| 50+ | 3 |
Just to be clear when they say 'merge' they mean close and the Law Society propose several ideas to 'facilitate market exit for those wishing to leave. Well thank you, Lucy Moncrief! Even by their own figures the Law Soc proposals will force 1200 firms to close or 'merge'. That figure of 1200 is vaguely familiar. Where have we heard that before? Rather than 400 firms at the outset in 2014, its designed to reduce the market to 400 firms by 2015.
There is a good reason that only 3 firms have more than 50 duty solicitors. There is a good reason why 80% of the firms have less than 5 duty solicitors. The reason is simply that there are no economies of scale in an industry that provides expert advice on a person to person basis. We don't make widgets so having bulk does not create savings. It did not work for accountancy and for all the same reasons it will not work for criminal law.
The only way large firms can make savings is by slashing the cost of the qualified experts who provide that one to one advice. Break the link between the duty slots and the experts and you give the biggest firms the power to slash wages.
What about quality? Well its back to the lowest fees argument. Rather than bidding for low priced contracts the firms will be given a buyers market where there will be mass redundancies, closures and wages that will simply bottom out. Only the cheapest advocates will be employed. Goodbye quality.
The Law Society makes no mention of fees and money. They only accept that savings have to be made and seem to think they will find savings of £200m in this proposal. Where? I can't find any savings and I actually read the proposals. Twice. Hold on, I will read it again. Nope. Nothing in it.
Its not clear then how this stupid, stupid proposal proposes to save £200m. The Law Society have not bothered to cost any of it out or make any real suggestions. There is nothing here that would actually save money! The only idea they have is a charge on convicted criminals. A sort of victim's surcharge on top of the fees already levied on the convicted. And that brilliant bit of policy, lifted directly from the pages of the Daily Mail will raise a paltry £11m. So that only leaves £190m in savings left for them to find.
They also want more wasted costs orders at a whopping £100 a time. The CPS will pay the defence for delays they cause and the defence will pay the CPS for delays they cause. Brilliant. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So really, what the Law Society are proposing here is to create bigger firms, slash wages, sack the duty solicitors, impose cuts of 20% across the board and close 1,200 firms. Well thanks very much! We have suffered cuts year on year since 1994 and the Law Society is backing 20% in further cuts. God love them.
Far from being a well thought our proposal based on evidence and solid figures its a thinly veiled attempt to kill off the efficient small firms and ruin the already underpaid the criminal solicitors. It will lead to sausage factories of bargain basement advice... hold on, that all sounds a bit too familiar. Isn't that precisely what we were opposed to in the first place?
But its worse, much worse than that. Even Chris Grayling supported outsourcing. But the Law Society is back to banging on about the work being done in-house. This time the figure plucked from thin air is 95%. Why? How have the brilliant independent police station reps upset the Law Society? Why on earth do they think that hard working solicitors should get no sleep, no money and have no future? Reps exist because it was never realistic for firms to do it all in-house. Its not economic and its not sustainable. Give the clients choice but give the firms no choice at all. Forcing the firms to do the work in-house merely puts more pressure on the firms to cut costs to the bone.
The Law Society simply want us to slash wages, create mega firms and have the few remaining solicitors work like dogs. This is a mental proposal. The only alternative offered in this proposal is the word alternative on page one. Its alternative in the same way that Bernard Manning was an alternative comedian and ABBA were an alternative rock band. It isn't an alternative, its the same dumb idea with the word alternative in the title.
One last thought, lifted from the law society's own web page: "The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales... We are here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales."
Doomed, we are all doomed, I tell ye.
Law Society - Alternative Proposal
--------------------- *** ---------------------
In September 2014 the criminal defence industry will be radically reorganised in the biggest shake up we
have ever seen. Woodrow Wilson said, "I used to be a lawyer, but now I am a reformed character" and
very soon we are all about to be reformed.
You can read the proposals yourself but to save you the bother here are the significant bits along with
our take on what it means for the reps:
The Headlines
- Firms will be invited to bid for criminal contracts
- There will only be a maximum of 400 winning firms
- Rates cut by 17.5%
- Police station fees cut and harmonised by area
- At least 1200 firms will go out of business. That's a whopping 75%
- Lots of redundant staff. At least 5000 solicitors on the dole
- Expect pressure on reps fees and salaries for the few left standing
- Clients will have a solicitor appointed. No client choice
- The stated intention is to reduce quality
The Timetable
- Autum 2013 - Tender Process Starts
- Summer 2014 - Contracts Awarded
- September 2014 - Service Starts (see big black clock)
The Countdown to BVT:
Days |
Hours |
Minutes |
Seconds |
||
Your Firm will go Bust
Under the proposals criminal firms will be invited to bid for criminal work. There will be a limited number
of winners. Around 1200 of the existing 1600 firms will lose. That's 75% of all firms going out of business.
In fact because one firm could win several bids it could be much, much worse than that.
The table below shows the number of firms that will be allowed in each area. Its pretty grim. Taking Leicester
as an example; there are currently around 40 firms practising criminal law but very soon there will be only five.
| Area | No | Area | No | |
| Avon Somerset & Gloucestershire | 12 | |
London West & Central | 38 |
| Bedfordshire | 7 | London North & East | 27 | |
| Cambridgeshire | 4 | London South | 18 | |
| Cheshire | 9 | Merseyside | 14 | |
| Cleveland | 6 | Norfolk | 4 | |
| Cumbria | 4 | North Wales | 4 | |
| Derbyshire | 7 | North Yorkshire | 4 | |
| Devon & Cornwall | 10 | Northamptonshire | 4 | |
| Dorset | 4 | Northumbria | 10 | |
| Durham | 6 | Nottinghamshire | 6 | |
| Dyfed-Powys | 4 | South Wales | 9 | |
| Essex | 7 | South Yorkshire | 8 | |
| Greater Manchester | 37 | Staffordshire | 7 | |
| Gwent | 4 | Suffolk | 4 | |
| Hampshire | 9 | Surrey | 4 | |
| Hertfordshire | 7 | Sussex | 8 | |
| Humberside | 4 | Thames Valley | 4 | |
| Kent | 5 | Warwickshire & West Mercia | 9 | |
| Lancashire | 14 | West Midlands | 20 | |
| Leicestershire | 5 | West Yorkshire | 25 | |
| Lincolnshire | 4 | Wiltshire | 4 | |
| TOTAL: | 400 |
Competition
Each of the winning firms will get an equal share of the business. So in Leicester each firm will have 20%
of the total pie. There will effectively be no competition between those firms. In fact the proposal goes
so far as to say that there will be no own client work at all. Every criminal case will be apportioned by
the DSCC so clients will not be able to choose the firm they want.
So there will be no competition. None. The firms that survive will not be able to compete with each other.
So there will be no competition. None. The firms that survive will not be able to compete with each other.
Is My Job Safe?
There is no easy way to break this to you but if you are currently employed by a firm then you are going to
lose your job. You will be on the dole queue. Your job is not safe. Nor is mine. Sorry about that.
Realistically, if you are a duty solicitor then the only reason you have a job is so the firm can get its paws on your duty slots. Under the new system the firm will have a set share of the criminal work. No slots means no job. All duty solicitors in England and Wales under the new system are over paid and will probably be sacked.
Stop kidding yourself that your firm will win a franchise. It will not win. The odds of winning are 3-1 against. At least 75% of the firms will go bust. Only a handful will survive and even if your firm does win they are going to either sack you or ask you to reapply for your job. The firms are going to get less money because there is a built in intention to cut fees by 17.5%. If you get a permanent job in-house there is going to be a considerable cut to your salary. With all those unemployed solicitors on the market the pressure on salaries will be downwards.
I am a Duty Solicitor so I take no pleasure in pointing this out.
Any firm that wins a franchise will need someone to attend court of course, but they will not need as many and if they decide to use agents they need none at all.
The same applies to paralegals, legal secretaries and solicitors. The police station reps are not safe either. The only staff that are safe are those with Higher Rights. Even the changes to Crown Court funding are draconian so those with High Rights may not be all that secure. Firms are already shedding staff.
Realistically, if you are a duty solicitor then the only reason you have a job is so the firm can get its paws on your duty slots. Under the new system the firm will have a set share of the criminal work. No slots means no job. All duty solicitors in England and Wales under the new system are over paid and will probably be sacked.
Stop kidding yourself that your firm will win a franchise. It will not win. The odds of winning are 3-1 against. At least 75% of the firms will go bust. Only a handful will survive and even if your firm does win they are going to either sack you or ask you to reapply for your job. The firms are going to get less money because there is a built in intention to cut fees by 17.5%. If you get a permanent job in-house there is going to be a considerable cut to your salary. With all those unemployed solicitors on the market the pressure on salaries will be downwards.
I am a Duty Solicitor so I take no pleasure in pointing this out.
Any firm that wins a franchise will need someone to attend court of course, but they will not need as many and if they decide to use agents they need none at all.
The same applies to paralegals, legal secretaries and solicitors. The police station reps are not safe either. The only staff that are safe are those with Higher Rights. Even the changes to Crown Court funding are draconian so those with High Rights may not be all that secure. Firms are already shedding staff.
We are all Agents Now
Maybe, just maybe we can all survive as agents. Any firm that wins a franchise will need to cut costs to
maximise profits. Put simply, permanent staff cost money. Any smart winning bidder will be cutting costs to
the bone. It would make a great deal of sense to outsource as much as possible. Bid winning firms would
be better off instructing a rep for each and every police station matter than employing a rep in-house.
Its simply more efficeint and cost effective.
In fact the firms can outsource the court attendances and even the file preparation. The most efficeint firm would be one man and a telephone. He would simply co-ordinate a disparate team of agents. What concerns me is that the firms could be prevented from doing that because its hard to imagine that this is what the Ministry actually wants.
This is the big worry for all those registered on this site. The final draft of the contract may very well insist on the firms dealing with just about everything in-house. Under the current contract firms are supposed to deal with 80% of the work in-house. Most firms simply ignore that requirement. Some have found fancy ways round it by issuing zero hour, zero money contracts to all the reps they use.
Under the new contract it is just possible that Ministry of Justice not only insists on 90% being done in-house but enforces it too. Were that to happen then it is game over and we are all screwed. The document certainly envisages agents being used. But its not a final draft.
It is possible, of course, that the firms will not use agents at all. Without any client choice the firms will know months in advance which stations and courts they need to cover and when. If the firm have an eight hour shift at Peckham then all they need is a young, bright eyed, bushy tailed rep to sit at the station for the whole shift. There will be plenty of suitably qualified people on the market and there is always a steady supply of those wanting training contracts. Clearly, that will cause delays for clients and police. But they will simply have to wait in line for that one poor, miserable, underpaid, overworked rep.
In fact the firms can outsource the court attendances and even the file preparation. The most efficeint firm would be one man and a telephone. He would simply co-ordinate a disparate team of agents. What concerns me is that the firms could be prevented from doing that because its hard to imagine that this is what the Ministry actually wants.
This is the big worry for all those registered on this site. The final draft of the contract may very well insist on the firms dealing with just about everything in-house. Under the current contract firms are supposed to deal with 80% of the work in-house. Most firms simply ignore that requirement. Some have found fancy ways round it by issuing zero hour, zero money contracts to all the reps they use.
Under the new contract it is just possible that Ministry of Justice not only insists on 90% being done in-house but enforces it too. Were that to happen then it is game over and we are all screwed. The document certainly envisages agents being used. But its not a final draft.
It is possible, of course, that the firms will not use agents at all. Without any client choice the firms will know months in advance which stations and courts they need to cover and when. If the firm have an eight hour shift at Peckham then all they need is a young, bright eyed, bushy tailed rep to sit at the station for the whole shift. There will be plenty of suitably qualified people on the market and there is always a steady supply of those wanting training contracts. Clearly, that will cause delays for clients and police. But they will simply have to wait in line for that one poor, miserable, underpaid, overworked rep.
Police Station Fees
Rates for attending police stations will go down. Of course they will. If you have read this far then you will not be surprised.
The rates are not changing dramatically. But if we are all agents then the competition is going to drive down
the rates of remuneration. The table below shows the new fees.
Effectively its a harmonisation of fees in each area. Its not a dramatic shift but the new rates are on average 17.5% lower for each area. The harmonisation of fees is probably the only sensible suggestion in the document. However, the figures are only a guide and may well include VAT. The proposal simply is not clear on that point. If that is correct then its a far bigger reduction.
Its worth bearing in mind that all the figures I have quoted are estimates and are not the final numbers. Its is possible the final numbers will be lower. The police have had 25% cuts across the board so the number of arrests is down and falling. Fewer bobbies means fewer arrests. The National Crime Statistics have shown a dramatic decrease in crime. Whatever the reason for the downturn in crime the actual figures are likely to be lower too.
Effectively its a harmonisation of fees in each area. Its not a dramatic shift but the new rates are on average 17.5% lower for each area. The harmonisation of fees is probably the only sensible suggestion in the document. However, the figures are only a guide and may well include VAT. The proposal simply is not clear on that point. If that is correct then its a far bigger reduction.
Its worth bearing in mind that all the figures I have quoted are estimates and are not the final numbers. Its is possible the final numbers will be lower. The police have had 25% cuts across the board so the number of arrests is down and falling. Fewer bobbies means fewer arrests. The National Crime Statistics have shown a dramatic decrease in crime. Whatever the reason for the downturn in crime the actual figures are likely to be lower too.
| AREA | TOTAL VALUE | VOLUME | AVE CLAIM | NEW RATE |
| Avon & Somerset | £4,390,044 | 17,387 | £252 | £208 |
| Bedfordshire | £2,110,024 | 8,001 | £264 | £218 |
| Cambridgeshire | £2,170,032 | 9,197 | £236 | £195 |
| Cheshire | £3,707,245 | 14,447 | £257 | £212 |
| Cleveland | £1,964,974 | 9,849 | £200 | £165 |
| Cumbria | £1,166,544 | 4,800 | £243 | £200 |
| Derbyshire | £3,333,411 | 11,995 | £278 | £229 |
| Devon & Cornwall | £4,652,837 | 17,373 | £268 | £221 |
| Dorset | £1,300,924 | 6,681 | £195 | £161 |
| Durham | £3,707,326 | 16,149 | £230 | £189 |
| Dyfed-Powys | £1,463,323 | 5,202 | £281 | £232 |
| Essex | £5,310,993 | 17,498 | £304 | £250 |
| Gloucestershire | £1,236,723 | 5,059 | £244 | £202 |
| Greater Manchester | £9,273,650 | 36,443 | £254 | £210 |
| Gwent | £1,028,736 | 4,024 | £256 | £211 |
| Hampshire | £5,646,681 | 19,714 | £286 | £236 |
| Hertfordshire | £4,010,557 | 11,484 | £349 | £288 |
| Humberside | £2,630,956 | 12,661 | £208 | £171 |
| Kent | £5,219,877 | 16,609 | £314 | £259 |
| Lancashire | £4,934,103 | 21,987 | £224 | £185 |
| Leicestershire | £3,064,161 | 11,484 | £267 | £220 |
| Lincolnshire | £1,829,100 | 7,334 | £249 | £206 |
| London West & Central | £14,236,271 | 42,923 | £332 | £274 |
| London North & East | £14,340,334 | 43,474 | £330 | £272 |
| London South | £17,133,587 | 50,066 | £342 | £282 |
| Merseyside | £4,232,544 | 17,031 | £249 | £205 |
| Norfolk | £2,043,945 | 8,204 | £249 | £206 |
| NorthWales | £2,019,402 | 7,238 | £279 | £230 |
| North Yorkshire | £1,914,836 | 7,823 | £245 | £202 |
| Northamptonshire | £1,976,573 | 7,939 | £249 | £205 |
| Northumbria | £2,543,842 | 11,669 | £218 | £180 |
| Nottinghamshire | £3,726,024 | 14,133 | £264 | £218 |
| South Wales | £5,414,261 | 19,839 | £273 | £225 |
| South Yorkshire | £3,548,859 | 14,728 | £241 | £199 |
| Staffordshire | £3,062,151 | 11,537 | £265 | £219 |
| Suffolk | £1,148,052 | 4,548 | £252 | £208 |
| Surrey | £1,926,972 | 6,477 | £298 | £245 |
| Sussex | £5,531,264 | 20,346 | £272 | £224 |
| Thames Valley | £7,116,482 | 24,349 | £292 | £241 |
| Warwickshire | £1,039,095 | 3,798 | £274 | £226 |
| West Mercia | £2,884,365 | 10,711 | £269 | £222 |
| West Midlands | £9,406,274 | 34,860 | £270 | £223 |
| West Yorkshire | £7,565,612 | 34,041 | £222 | £183 |
| Wiltshire | £1,851,194 | 6,978 | £265 | £219 |
Black Spots
Just a thought on those fees. Lets take a look at Leicestershire again. Most of the jobs are at
Euston Street Police Station. The old fee was £195 and the new fee is £220. So its a modest
increase. But the figures are based on average claims. Its unlikely the firms will pay mileage since
the concept of mileage will simply vanish.
A sensible rep will simply refuse to go further than ten or twenty miles as its uneconomic. That may well create blackspots where no reps will be available. Carlisle, the whole of the South West and Worcestershire spring to mind as places that will have no criminal cover at all.
Black spots seem inevitable. A rep in Leicester probably lives in the city or close by. But who lives in Skegness, Wymondham or Exeter? Who is going to bother bidding for a contract in Lincolnshire? In Lincolnshire each of the four firms will have a police station income of £370K but very few local reps and a vast area to cover.
A sensible rep will simply refuse to go further than ten or twenty miles as its uneconomic. That may well create blackspots where no reps will be available. Carlisle, the whole of the South West and Worcestershire spring to mind as places that will have no criminal cover at all.
Black spots seem inevitable. A rep in Leicester probably lives in the city or close by. But who lives in Skegness, Wymondham or Exeter? Who is going to bother bidding for a contract in Lincolnshire? In Lincolnshire each of the four firms will have a police station income of £370K but very few local reps and a vast area to cover.
Double Bubble & Escape Fees
The document makes no mention of two fees where there are two disposals. It makes no mention of Escape Fees for lengthy
matters. The firms will get a lump sum based on the number of police station attendances for each year. On the up side
that means that reps should get paid very quickly. No more excuses from the firms about waiting for the matter to end.
It will be a nice change if it happens. In theory we could cover a police station and get paid the same day.
But there is going to be an issue with long winded attendances. An all day rape is one thing and we can probably all live with a fixed fee for a longish job. But a 14 day terrorism case? Anyone fancy taking on a long weekend on a murder?.
Naturally, the firms will have to take a view as to how to pay the reps and the reps will likewise have to take a view as well. Anything is possible but the firms will have a fixed budget that will be effectively set in stone.
According to the proposal, if a client is arrested and interviewed at one station and then transported to another station for another interview on another matter, then the first firm will not get any extra money and will be repsonsible for the subsequent interviews. So, your client is arrested and interviewed in Carlisle and then taken to Southampton for a second interview on a wholly unrelated matter. The firm will be expected to deal with both. Now that should be fun!
But there is going to be an issue with long winded attendances. An all day rape is one thing and we can probably all live with a fixed fee for a longish job. But a 14 day terrorism case? Anyone fancy taking on a long weekend on a murder?.
Naturally, the firms will have to take a view as to how to pay the reps and the reps will likewise have to take a view as well. Anything is possible but the firms will have a fixed budget that will be effectively set in stone.
According to the proposal, if a client is arrested and interviewed at one station and then transported to another station for another interview on another matter, then the first firm will not get any extra money and will be repsonsible for the subsequent interviews. So, your client is arrested and interviewed in Carlisle and then taken to Southampton for a second interview on a wholly unrelated matter. The firm will be expected to deal with both. Now that should be fun!
Will Quality Suffer?
Yup, the purpose of the new system is to 'reduce the extent of firms offering services above the acceptable level'.
The Ministry of Justice admits in its own small print that the Grayling plans will lead to less effective representation. "We anticipate the proposed competition model may have an adverse impact on clients” the MoJ consultation states “because they would no longer have the choice of selecting any provider to deliver criminal legal aid services." The MoJ adds: “Fee schemes that are largely based on fixed fees mean that providers might make a profit on the fixed fee because relatively little work was required on the case. However, in other cases which required more work, they could make a loss." In other words: its a race to the bottom.
Moving to this new, mad, mad system will affect quality. I am confident that professional lawyers will continue to do their jobs to the very best of their ability regardless of the money. Its just a shame that professional lawyers will be serving chips in McDonalds instead of serving up justice in court.
What will be lost is any hope of every client being represented properly. The industry will not attract the brightest and the best. It will simply maintain a minimum standard. The new system is designed to give merely an acceptable standard. The highest standards will be replaced with a perfunctory plateau of proficiency.
The Ministry of Justice admits in its own small print that the Grayling plans will lead to less effective representation. "We anticipate the proposed competition model may have an adverse impact on clients” the MoJ consultation states “because they would no longer have the choice of selecting any provider to deliver criminal legal aid services." The MoJ adds: “Fee schemes that are largely based on fixed fees mean that providers might make a profit on the fixed fee because relatively little work was required on the case. However, in other cases which required more work, they could make a loss." In other words: its a race to the bottom.
Moving to this new, mad, mad system will affect quality. I am confident that professional lawyers will continue to do their jobs to the very best of their ability regardless of the money. Its just a shame that professional lawyers will be serving chips in McDonalds instead of serving up justice in court.
What will be lost is any hope of every client being represented properly. The industry will not attract the brightest and the best. It will simply maintain a minimum standard. The new system is designed to give merely an acceptable standard. The highest standards will be replaced with a perfunctory plateau of proficiency.
But will it Happen?
I wrote this because we are being asked about it every day and the most common question is will it actually happen?
Anyone who says they know the answer to that question is talking nonsense. Its pure opinion. Here is what we think: Yes!
Its going to happen.
This has been coming for a very long time. It makes no sense but it is what Whitehall wants. I doubt this is intended to save money as in the long term it will inevitably lead to a very expensive public defender service. So alternative proposals that only suggest cutting fees are doomed to failure. This is not about saving money.
This is about cutting the number of firms to as few as possible. When Jack Straw came to the Home Office there were around 7000 criminal firms. Currently there are 1600. These proposals take us to a maximum of 400. The contracts last 3 to 5 years and it seems to me that the number of firms will continue to drop. The legislation allows for a minimum of 6 firms.
Its happened to Civil Law and its happened to Immigration and its even happened to the interpreters. The simple and self evident fact that all three of those reforms were and continue to be a disaster only goes to show that this process is more likely to happen than not.
This is going to happen and there would appear to be very little that could actually stop it. The coalition government are clearly not going to stop it. The next election is May 2015 which will be too late. If there is a delay there is no indication from Labour that they would reverse the policy.
The Daily Mail is not going to support us. The public will not support us. We are the fat cat lawyers milking the system remember. The Law Society will not support us either. Solicitors are prohibited from strike action and any protests will, in my view, fail. Thats not to say we should sit back and let the government put us all out of work. We should shout and scream, protest and march. All I am saying is that this will happen. Get ready for it.
This has been coming for a very long time. It makes no sense but it is what Whitehall wants. I doubt this is intended to save money as in the long term it will inevitably lead to a very expensive public defender service. So alternative proposals that only suggest cutting fees are doomed to failure. This is not about saving money.
This is about cutting the number of firms to as few as possible. When Jack Straw came to the Home Office there were around 7000 criminal firms. Currently there are 1600. These proposals take us to a maximum of 400. The contracts last 3 to 5 years and it seems to me that the number of firms will continue to drop. The legislation allows for a minimum of 6 firms.
Its happened to Civil Law and its happened to Immigration and its even happened to the interpreters. The simple and self evident fact that all three of those reforms were and continue to be a disaster only goes to show that this process is more likely to happen than not.
This is going to happen and there would appear to be very little that could actually stop it. The coalition government are clearly not going to stop it. The next election is May 2015 which will be too late. If there is a delay there is no indication from Labour that they would reverse the policy.
The Daily Mail is not going to support us. The public will not support us. We are the fat cat lawyers milking the system remember. The Law Society will not support us either. Solicitors are prohibited from strike action and any protests will, in my view, fail. Thats not to say we should sit back and let the government put us all out of work. We should shout and scream, protest and march. All I am saying is that this will happen. Get ready for it.
Fancy Bidding?
Below is a table showing the value of the police station contracts by area.
The firms will be given a block payment for police station coverage. The figures show what each firm is likely to
be paid. Thats the total pot they have to play with. It would appear that its well worth bidding in
Thames Valley, Kent and South London but it may be very difficult to have a profitable business in
Manchester, Newcastle and Wales.
Its hard to imagine firms even bidding for some of the proposed areas. The proposed Greater Manchester area will be split between 37 successful bidders. The total value of the police station business is around £9m and there will be around 36,400 cases. Sounds lucrative at first glance. But each firm will get less than 1000 police station jobs and around £200,000 for their efforts. Take off the cost of the office, the 24 hour staffing and all the other overheads and its not a very attractive business proposition.
Contrast that with Thames Valley where there will be a mere 4 firms each getting around £1,500,000 per annum just for the police station attendances. Its a far more attractive proposal. The firm will have to cover 6,000 police station matters but its far clearer that a sustainable, well managed business could exist.
Its hard to imagine firms even bidding for some of the proposed areas. The proposed Greater Manchester area will be split between 37 successful bidders. The total value of the police station business is around £9m and there will be around 36,400 cases. Sounds lucrative at first glance. But each firm will get less than 1000 police station jobs and around £200,000 for their efforts. Take off the cost of the office, the 24 hour staffing and all the other overheads and its not a very attractive business proposition.
Contrast that with Thames Valley where there will be a mere 4 firms each getting around £1,500,000 per annum just for the police station attendances. Its a far more attractive proposal. The firm will have to cover 6,000 police station matters but its far clearer that a sustainable, well managed business could exist.
| Area | Volume | New Rate | No of Firms | Value |
| Thames Valley | 24,349 | £241 | 4 | £1,467,027 |
| Kent | 16,609 | £259 | 5 | £860,346 |
| London South | 50,066 | £282 | 18 | £784,367 |
| Essex | 17,498 | £250 | 7 | £624,929 |
| Sussex | 20,346 | £224 | 8 | £569,688 |
| Humberside | 12,661 | £171 | 4 | £541,258 |
| Hampshire | 19,714 | £236 | 9 | £516,945 |
| Nottinghamshire | 14,133 | £218 | 6 | £513,499 |
| Durham | 16,149 | £189 | 6 | £508,694 |
| Leicestershire | 11,484 | £220 | 5 | £505,296 |
| South Wales | 19,839 | £225 | 9 | £495,975 |
| Hertfordshire | 11,484 | £288 | 7 | £472,485 |
| Cambridgeshire | 9,197 | £195 | 4 | £448,354 |
| London North & East | 43,474 | £272 | 27 | £437,960 |
| Norfolk | 8,204 | £206 | 4 | £422,506 |
| North Wales | 7,238 | £230 | 4 | £416,185 |
| Northamptonshire | 7,939 | £205 | 4 | £406,874 |
| Surrey | 6,477 | £245 | 4 | £396,716 |
| North Yorkshire | 7,823 | £202 | 4 | £395,062 |
| Derbyshire | 11,995 | £229 | 7 | £392,408 |
| West Midlands | 34,860 | £223 | 20 | £388,689 |
| Devon & Cornwall | 17,373 | £221 | 10 | £383,943 |
| Avon Somerset & Gloucestershire | 22,446 | £205 | 12 | £383,453 |
| Wiltshire | 6,978 | £219 | 4 | £382,046 |
| Lincolnshire | 7,334 | £206 | 4 | £377,701 |
| South Yorkshire | 14,728 | £199 | 8 | £366,359 |
| Warwickshire & West Mercia | 14,509 | £224 | 9 | £361,113 |
| Staffordshire | 11,537 | £219 | 7 | £360,943 |
| Cheshire | 14,447 | £212 | 9 | £340,307 |
| London West & Central | 42,923 | £274 | 38 | £309,497 |
| Dyfed-Powys | 5,202 | £232 | 4 | £301,716 |
| Lancashire | 21,987 | £185 | 14 | £290,543 |
| Cleveland | 9,849 | £165 | 6 | £270,848 |
| Dorset | 6,681 | £161 | 4 | £268,910 |
| Merseyside | 17,031 | £205 | 14 | £249,383 |
| West Yorkshire | 34,041 | £183 | 25 | £249,180 |
| Bedfordshire | 8,001 | £218 | 7 | £249,174 |
| Cumbria | 4,800 | £200 | 4 | £240,000 |
| Suffolk | 4,548 | £208 | 4 | £236,496 |
| Gwent | 4,024 | £211 | 4 | £212,266 |
| Northumbria | 11,669 | £180 | 10 | £210,042 |
| Greater Manchester | 36,443 | £210 | 37 | £206,839 |
To avoid ending on a bum note: Do remember that none of this is set in stone. Don't panic but do start
planning. The job is changing so you need a Plan B.
Much of what I have written is my opinion. I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. The whole thing could be abandoned or postponed. Home Office ministers come and go and these days they last months not years. There will always be cops and robbers so there will always be criminal solicitors. The work will still be there. There is still hope! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Much of what I have written is my opinion. I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. The whole thing could be abandoned or postponed. Home Office ministers come and go and these days they last months not years. There will always be cops and robbers so there will always be criminal solicitors. The work will still be there. There is still hope! Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Do please feel free to email with any thoughts you may have.
--------------------- *** ---------------------
If you found our site useful please feel free to donate to help us keep it going. |
REGISTER NOW - FREE REGISTRATION!
If you are an Accredited Police Station Representative and would like to appear on our database of accredited police station representatives please click on the link above. You will be presented with a short form which you will need to complete. Right now we are in the process of developing this site. Whilst we are pleased that registration is currently free we can in no way guarantee that this will always be the case. This is an introductory offer and you should register now to take advantage of it.
If you are looking for a accredited police station representative please bookmark this page. Our advanced search engine will be able to find a Police Station Representatives in any area of the country quickly and easily. Finding accredited police station representatives will never have been so easy.
Free searchable database of accredited police
station representatives. All the names listed have been checked against
the LSC's register of accredited police station representatives.
REGISTER NOW
If you would like your details to appear on this web site please take a moment to register your contact details on the UK's only national database for accredited police station representatives. Registration is completely free. Every day solicitors up and down the country need to find accredited police station representatives. If you need more business and lets face it who doesn't then you should register now!
BEEN ARRESTED? This web site is for the use of legal professionals only. Please note that if you or someone you know has been arrested you should contact a solicitor. this web site is for the use of solicitors and their employees only.