First, can I say that iLegal has kept me sane over the last few months, and thanks to all the contributors.
Following the family judgment in favour of the Law Society there seems to have been no discussion regarding pursuing costs from the LSC. We tendered for substantial contracts which were offered and then withdrawn and have wasted valuable time reorganising and planning both for the tender and to deliver the proffered work. I am curious as to why this doesn't seem to be being discussed. Am I missing something that means we can't pursue costs?
Any info on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance.
First, can I say that iLegal has kept me sane over the last few months, and thanks to all the contributors.
Following the family judgment in favour of the Law Society there seems to have been no discussion regarding pursuing costs from the LSC. We tendered for substantial contracts which were offered and then withdrawn and have wasted valuable time reorganising and planning both for the tender and to deliver the proffered work. I am curious as to why this doesn't seem to be being discussed. Am I missing something that means we can't pursue costs?
Any info on this would be greatly appreciated, and thanks in advance.
You're welcome benjit, and thanks for the feedback
This quick post is just to say that I agree that this is a massively important issue and I'll update and get back to you properly ASAP tomorrow. It's interesting how it seems to have slipped off the agenda - not the ilegal agenda, however
If anyone wants to share or comment on this in the meantime, go for it. I'll give my angle in the morning
Post by Colin Henderson on Oct 28, 2010 11:03:22 GMT
The Law Society do seem to be on with this issue (they referred to it in previous press statements) and now there is no appeal, compensation should be a given.
They say they would like "to hear from family legal aid firms that were provisionally awarded contracts in the recent tender round but will now suffer financial loss as a result of the LSC's process being declared unlawful. This is to inform negotiations with the LSC over possible compensation and/or other redress the LSC could provide such firms. "
But I would like to know who will compensate the employees of such firms? Surely anyone who left a job and couldn't go back has an individual claim?
Thanks Colin, I appreciate that and shall have a more in depth look at the survey soon. It would appear that the survey can be completed annonymously, so I assume it is just to shape their discussions with the LSC at this point. Would you be inclinded then to wait for an official statement from TLS as to perusing lost costs?
Thanks Colin, I appreciate that and shall have a more in depth look at the survey soon. It would appear that the survey can be completed annonymously, so I assume it is just to shape their discussions with the LSC at this point. Would you be inclinded then to wait for an official statement from TLS as to perusing lost costs?
I would hope that TLS would keep everyone in the loop as to what the position is regarding potential compensation arising out of the Family situation although, I think you are right benjit, that the survey appears to be there, at least at this stage, to inform discussions only. It might be worth rattling their cage a little, just to ensure you are happy with their approach and/or taking your own advice from an expert in the public law field
It is probably worth observing that, on the one hand it is good that TLS is doing something about it. However, on the other hand I imagine the LSC knows that by engaging in this it will limit or possibly negate the effect of individual claims brought by any firms affected. In this respect then, perhaps TLS negotiating with the LSC might not achieve quite what those firms involved feel is an appropriate reflection of their loss, whilst at the same time having the effect of neutralising any potential legal action individual firms might bring. I don't know
Colin also rightly points out the problems of individuals who left, or were made redundant, by firms as a consequence of re-profiling in anticipation of any offer (or not) that had been made. Again, we are into a minefield but, surely, there must be some form of redress for these individuals and I would recommend anyone affected take their own legal advice, ideally from their network or representative body. Are LAPG or TLS doing anything about this issue?
I don't think we should forget either, the additional costs incurred by organisations in the SWL categories as a consequence of the delay. Whilst many will just be happy now that the contract is to go ahead (I'm not going to allow myself to believe it until it happens) there must be some that have gone to considerable expense simply in order to hang around until a decision was made either way. It may be that these organisations too have a claim, although I don't see TLS addressing the issue, or even LAPG. Please someone, correct me if I'm wrong on this
Can I pose a question, are the LSC insured? If they were, wouldn't a claim against that insurance be possible as an alternative to taking direct legal action? If it were possible, I wonder how one might go about finding out about and making such a claim....
Post by Colin Henderson on Nov 11, 2010 16:39:53 GMT
Hmmm, well certainly the LSC always require me to say if my client or their opponent is insured before applying for legal aid, and we all have to have insurance against being negligent, but who would insure the LSC against the results of their incompetence? Can you imagine the premiums!
Further news on the compensation recovery issue aimed at family practitioners. Resolution's newsletter today states:
"Since the quashing of the family contracts, we have been contacted by many members from around the country expressing concern about the financial loss they have suffered as a consequence. Many of you have reported that you have taken on staff that you may not be able to keep, taken on additional borrowing and in many cases signed leases to open new offices.
Resolution is investigating with other representative bodies about what compensation and assistance the Commission might be able to offer. It is of considerable concern that initial assurances given by the Commission that organisations at the very least would be able to undertake outreach work from the new offices may not be honoured, and we have reported separately about the difficulty of allocating matter starts. Firms may therefore be left with little or no alternative but to make a financial claim to cover their losses.
Caroline Makin of Makin Dixon has indicated that she would be prepared to coordinate enquiries and liaise with the Commission about the appropriate way forward. This may well include taking the advice of expert counsel as to potential actions in both contract, negligence and public misfeasance. Any member who wishes to consider making a claim should contact Caroline at caroline.makin@makindixon.co.uk, or at Makin Dixon, DX 21760 Skipton. "
