Evidence submitted by Liverpool Law Society
(LAR 96)
I attach my firms brief thoughts on Carter—we
are a large family law practice—in the top 50 nationwide
and we are not sure that we can continue to practice on the current
proposals. If we cannot do it then many others will not do it.
1. Care work cannot be sustained on those
figures.
2. Concern that experienced solicitors will
move on and do different types of work.
3. Concern that vulnerable clients will
not get the service that they need.
4. Concern that solicitors will not be able
to spend the necessary time with clients and will have to tell
clients that they are not able to see them, which puts them into
direct conflict with their professional ethics.
5. That solicitors will not be able to be
able to go to court and wait for other parties who are cross-courting
or, where Judges are unable to deal with their case immediately.
Court listing will have to change.
6. No recognition of complicating factors
such as disability or mental illness.
7. Child care solicitors are already running
at a loss but do it because of their commitment and do long hours
to justify their existence within Partnerships. It will no longer
be possible to do that.
8. Courts will be faced with parents acting
in person.
CONCERNS IN
RELATION TO
PRIVATE WORK:
(a) Firms will not accept the risk of doing
such work, in particular ancillary matters
(b) Will be unlikely to instruct Counsel
at all
(c) Experienced solicitors will move on,
particularly as the removal of uplift for accredited specialists
thereby giving no encouragement to train for or recognition of
their skills.
(d) The courts and CAFCASS will be left to
sort out difficulties, as legal representation will be enormously
difficult to be obtained.
THERE ARE
SOME GOOD
POINTS IN
THE PROPOSALS:
1. More devolved powers.
2. Fixed fees may help early settlement
in private law cases but; there needs to be some flexibility for
complications.
SOME THOUGHTS
THAT WERE
EXPRESSED.
1. The escape threshold is too high—at
the maximum it should be 2 times.
2. There should be separate fees in private
matters to deal with injunction, contact and financial matters,
so giving £978.00 at least for each of those matters.
3. Solicitor advocates should be properly
rewarded and, should be comparable to the Bar.
4. Accredited specialist status should be
properly recognized.
5. Concern that some solicitors offices,
particularly if located out of the city centre, do not have the
capability to do advocacy in private cases and, certainly not
for the fees on offer. So again, clients will be unrepresented.
In answer to the specific points raised in the
committee then I adopt the response drafted for the Liverpool
law society as attached.
Q1. It is feared that clients needing advice
and assistance for family matters will have a much reduced pool
of suppliers. Conflicts will arise. A triage system will be established
so complicated, complex cases that cannot be dealt with by junior
clerks will not be offered an appointment. The courts will not
be able to deal with cases quickly since there will be many more
clients acting in person. Children will be prejudiced and perhaps
will not be heard in proceedings. The move to mediation and conciliated
responses will initially be successful but then in the long term
more complex problems could arise.
Q2. Providers in rural and semi rural areas
will not be able to obtain a contract. Clients will have to travel.
In many cases it is the most marginalised members of society who
are involved in these proceedings. Equally those firms with skills
of representing particular ethnic groups could be excluded from
having a contract.
Q3. Fixed fees are unrealistic for a quality
service dealing with individual people, families and their needs.
There can be no average for such emotionally charged proceedings.
Calculation of fixed fees—Peer reviewers
have pointed out that they do not believe that the method of calculation
of the proposed fixed fee rates is consistent with a good quality
supplier base. The Legal Services Commission's own figures from
benchmark Peer Reviews suggest that at present 40% of family suppliers
achieve a rating of 1 or 2. We understand that there is not always
an absolute correlation between cost and quality, but our experience
is that cases that are conducted to a good standard involve more
comprehensive work and (particularly in meeting the needs of vulnerable
clients) more time being spent. By including within the fixed
fee rate the work done by firms that have been assessed at Threshold
Competence or below, our view is that the fixed fee rates are
set an unrealistically low rate if a good standard of work is
expected. Our proposal is that any fixed fees should be set by
reference to the costs of firms rated 1 or 2.
Q4. Accept the need to provide a quality
service at a realistic price. However, present fees for solicitors
in family cases are not increasing exponentially. Counsels fees
for care cases and expert fees do require looking at but that
is to do with outside forces that Solicitors do not control eg
local authority resources and Judges directions have greater impact
on those factors.
Q5. The timetable is not realistic. Large
firms may decide to try and embrace the changes. However, on the
present figures can only do so if they take on more staff but
retain the same fixed cost base. Discussion and negotiations need
to be entered into. Smaller firms need to consider their future
and provide for their staff, clients and prepare new business
plans. The LSC say there may be funds available but this needs
to be advertised and properly allocated. The scheme relies on
Peer Review for quality check. However that is a 3 year cycle
from 2007 to 2110 so clearly the timetable for the proposals and
preferred supplier is inadequate.
Q6. Crime.
Q7. See above. Will limit choice and quality
of representation.
Q8. The pool of Legal aid providers will
contract. We deal with people and their emotional and personal
needs. It is not possible to take instructions over the telephone.
Such Providers do the work because of a social conscience. It
may be better not to do the job at all then do a bad job. Large
firms may come in but the profit level is so narrow that it is
doubtful if any commercial firms would be attracted.
Q9. Many legal aid firms manage because
they run a mixed economy with some private funded cases as well
as LSC funded. The qualified Solicitors will move on to do different
and more lucrative work. They are highly skilled and used to working
efficiently. They do have transferable skills. The accredited
Solicitors—many over 15-20 years experience note the notion
that they no longer should be paid a slightly higher level. This
has caused consternation and a feeling that the LSC do hold them
in contempt. It is presumed that the Government may have to set
up LSC providers in areas where the private market withdraws.
Historically such endeavours have not performed well—both
in terms of results and cost.
Q10. We do not believe that the measures
proposed will promote high quality service. Peer Reviewers presently
assess quality for Family and are concerned that the quality needed
for Category 1 or 2 as needed for preferred supplier cannot be
achieved on the present pay proposals. To get such a category
that Peer reviewers look for
— Dealing with linked issues, making
referrals to other agencies and developing working relationships
with other agencies.
— Meeting the needs of vulnerable clients,
including those with mental health issues and learning difficulties
and those whose first language is not English.
— A willingness to take on clients
who have multiple and complex problems.
— Undertaking work on an emergency
basis where this is necessary.
We believe the above standard of work is not
feasible on the rates being proposed. We think justice will not
be seen to be done and will not be done on those figures.
October 2006
| 
