That's really useful feedback meganzilla, much appreciated
It seems rwilkinson and lscstress have opened a book on the result so, I'll have a 50p accumulator on:
Law Society 'win'
LSC appeal
A focus on failures in the Selection Criteria
LSC hangs onto the 'the whole thing must fall if you faff about with Family' threat
Some form of settlement (e.g. Deed of) agreed as an alternative to scrapping the whole bid round and disruption minimised
Re-scoring of all Family applicants who got past the PQQ stage with certain Selection Criteria removed (esp. panel membership)
Order/agreement that this re-scoring exercise be limited to Family only
Lots more Family lawyers get contracts - although some still don't
Magical verification exercise somehow balances all current offers with new award winners
SWL unchanged
ilegal feted and publicly thanked by all network and representative bodies. Acknowledged as the only place that everyone, across the sector, was able to use to keep up with the Civil Bid Rounds and what was going on, getting up-to-the-minute information and sharing support in a radically open public online environment
Leeds United win automatic promotion from the Championship
World peace
What sort of timescales would be likely in this scenario? If the whole tender process it to be re-jigged and carried out afresh, or perhaps afresh in the sense that certain criteria is reviewed, wouldn't the existing contracts still need to be extended for quite some time.
I think all firms would like to have at least 6 to 12 months of stability given the horrendous time everyone has been put through.
I can see a number of problems if the existing tender is just revised and revisited, rather than providing firms with the opportunity of having a fresh tender, based on reasonable grounds, etc.
My view is that this is all such a complete mess that it would make sense for the whole tender to be looked at from scratch. A new tender can then be put into practice, giving every practitioner a fair and reasonable chance of continuing to undertake publicly funded civil work.
If the Law Society are successful, which does appear to be the most widely held view amongst the profession (I have yet to speak to one solicitor who thinks the LSC will be successful), then surely they will not settle for some half baked compromise to avoid the LSC appealing (if the LSC has the funds to appeal that is).
Post by Patrick Torsney on Sept 28, 2010 13:01:01 GMT
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 think all firms would like to have at least 6 to 12 months of stability given the horrendous time everyone has been put through.
I'm sure they would, but I think this is up there with Leeds United winning automatic promotion and world peace
I can see a number of problems if the existing tender is just revised and revisited, rather than providing firms with the opportunity of having a fresh tender, based on reasonable grounds, etc
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
If the Law Society are successful, which does appear to be the most widely held view amongst the profession (I have yet to speak to one solicitor who thinks the LSC will be successful), then surely they will not settle for some half baked compromise to avoid the LSC appealing (if the LSC has the funds to appeal that is).
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!
A little press snippet from the Law Sociey, published yesterday:
Law Society awaits Divisional Court judgment on family legal aid tender round
Legal proceedings against the Legal Services Commission over the recent outcome of the family legal aid tender round concluded in the Divisional Court yesterday
After three days of submissions, the Court (Mr Justice Beatson and Lord Justice Moses) yesterday reserved its decision. The Court is aiming to deliver its judgment orally this Thursday afternoon, 30 September 2010
Law Society President Linda Lee said the Law Society is pleased the Court was able to deliberate speedily on this important judicial review application
The Society was represented by Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers and Maya Lester of Brick Court Chambers, who were instructed by Bindmans LLP. The Legal Services Commission was represented by Clive Lewis QC, Paul Nicholls and Michael Lee of 11 Kings Bench Walk
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!!
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Sept 29, 2010 9:28:28 GMT
Thanks for the narrative crc - there is a lot of food for thought. I am starting to find it difficult to actually choose the outcome that i would be cheering for. I have the childish feeling of simply wanting to the LSC to have to humbly sit up and listen to what providers are/have been saying- but beyond that all outcomes have horrendous complications it appears
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?
Post by Patrick Torsney on Sept 29, 2010 9:45:55 GMT
We've got to keep our chin up and keep going forward. We know it isn't going to be easy, whatever the outcome. It never was and it never will be. But hey, we didn't get into this work for laughs. We're used to having to fight for what we believe in
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.
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.
Oh I see - removing the 'bonus' points for Children Panel membership, advanced family law panel membership, etc. That would seem sensible, and would surely ensure a much higher number of firms remain able to undertake publicly funded work.
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Sept 29, 2010 10:13:30 GMT
Would the knock on consequence mean that others would see the size of their Family contracts reduced? Or do we think the LSC would use the caveat created by their statement/message saying that any won on appeal would be additional to the existing awards?
Whilst the CLP JR was settled- would the same priciniple not apply? From memory there was felt to be one criteria that was potentially going to be criticised?
There are more questions thn answers it seems and probably even more questions after tommorrow!