First thing is to bear in mind that my 50p cheeky accumulator is pure speculation. I'm not saying I think it is the best way for things to turn out or, the worst. It's just that it's the kind of eventual outcome that wouldn't surprise me. I'm in one of those cynical moods today so will probably have a totally different attitude/opinion tomorrow

So, with that in mind - how long would it take to re-score the Family bids on the above basis? I don't know, but would guess at a month to two at most



I'm sure they would, but I think this is up there with Leeds United winning automatic promotion and world peace



I agree. But do you really think that this is all about going right back to square one? This is why I reckon some form of conciliation is likely, however unpalatable that may be. But hey, it's a guess, entirely the opposite could happen



I said earlier that I too think the Law Society will be successful, although perhaps not exactly in the way they would have liked or to the extent they would have liked. When I suggested that some form of compromise may be the conclusion to all this I meant after appeal proceedings had commenced, not in order to stop the LSC actually going for appeal. I think the Law Society would feel in a very strong position if they won and can't really see them compromising their position just because the LSC might want to take it further. Maybe the LSC is just trying it on, however. Would they really throw more money at this case if they lost in the first instance? Would there be 'sufficient benefit'?

It does raise the other question too I suppose, if the Law Society lost would they appeal?

Either way, it's all interesting stuff so keep the comments coming people, maybe one of us will get it right and it certainly fills the time until we know for sure!

The Law Society's view seems to be that there is a 50/50 chance of the JR succeeding. The selection criteria ground seems to have the best chance of success, the legal aid impact test/equality ground is borderline but the access to justice ground seems to have been less well received by the judges.

The main issue seems to be what any relief might be. If The Law Society win on the selection criteria issues, but not the other grounds (particularly the access to justice issue), then the view seems to be that the High Court may not actually quash the family tender process/results.

Certainly there is a view from the LSC that they can redo and rescore the family tender using the bids that have already been submitted however many months ago and that this could be done relatively quickly (within a matter of weeks).

There is another view that possibly the MoJ would actually prefer scrapping the whole tender process and extending the existing contracts for up to 18 months (I think March 2012 is the latest that the current contracts could be extended to). This is because of the likely swingeing cuts due very shortly when the Comprehensive Spending Review is announced in October (the 20th I think) and the consequential review of legal aid spending. It seems likely that there will be huge cuts to legal aid - scope, eligibility, payment rates all at risk.

It seems these cuts could take many months to introduce. Thus rather than issuing new contracts and then giving six months notice to terminate the new contracts in a few months time, the MoJ may rather extend the current contracts and then run a new tender in a years time with suppliers bidding for a whole lot less.

Whatever happens it is all a nightmare and this JR and the horrible uncertainty of the tendering and new contracts is only the start of a horrendous time for legal aid. We are all going to have fight tooth and nail to save legal aid and I am glad to have ilegal and its members and supporters fighting with me!!

PS In relation to another thread, I can confirm that Richard Miller is alive and well and not locked in a cellar - I saw him in the flesh at a meeting yesterday (at least I assume it was the real Richard Miller and not some alien clone). It seems that part of his earlier low profile is explained by the fact that he managed to have the audacity to arrange a family holiday in August just at the crucial time that The Law Society was deciding to launch the JR. Surely fighting the LSC should become before family!!

Thanks to crc for the update.

It does all seem to be very messy. I for one think that the better course of action would be for all existing contracts to be extended for 18 months or so, so that when the cuts are announced, firms can have a rounded view of what they will actually be submitting a tender for, and indeed whether they still wish to do so.

It would all seem to be a waste of time if there is some sort of fudging the existing tenders to get the new contracts implemented in mid-November, only for the LSC to serve notice that these 'new' contracts will be terminated early.

I was surpised the hear that the access to justice issue was less well received. Perhaps this isas a result of the verification excercise currently being undertaken by the commission?

crc - you say there is a feeling that the existing tender may not be quashed even if the Law Society are successful, and that the bids can be rescored. Do you have any idea how they would plan to do this?

I believe it would be my removing the selection criteria that have been criticised - the caseworker accreditation stuff. This would result in many more firms being successful, a result that I believe Moses LJ thought would be a good thing.