Evidence submitted by Ole Hansen &
Partners (LAR 105)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 We are a practice in Kennington, North
Lambeth, with LSC contracts in housing, welfare benefits and community
care. We also bring professional negligence claims—many
of them legally aided—against solicitors. We started in
July 1995 and now consist of two partners, six assistant solicitors,
a receptionist, an IT manager and a bookkeeper. We have native
speakers in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Russian and
Danish. We offer a full bi-lingual service in Spanish, Portuguese
and French.
1.2 We have always limited our services
to those for which we have particular expertise. We work in legal
aid because of our commitment to social justice. We represent
tenants, the homeless, the disabled, migrants, victims of negligence
and welfare benefits claimants. We are therefore also committed
to working in the publicly funded system and some 90% of our gross
annual fee income of £600,000 comes from the LSC.
1.3 The practice has been fully computerised
from the start. Caseworkers have networked computers with a case
management/document production system and internet access, including
to legal research databases. All caseworkers, including partners
undertake their own typing.
1.4 Many of us have previously worked in
law centres. Ole Hansen, the main author of these submissions,
been started in legal aid practice in 1971, has been co-director
and director of the Legal Action Group and worked in a law centre
and as a law lecturer. He has also written extensively on legal
aid and legal services. Maria Mercedes Palomares, the other partner,
qualified as a social worker and worked in advice and law centres
for 13 years before qualifying as a solicitor and being involved
in setting up this practice.
2. YOUR INQUIRY
2.1 You have stated that you are particularly
concerned with the Carter report's impact on criminal defence
services. That is understandable but we hope you will also find
time to consider the impact on civil legal services—particularly
social welfare law services.
2.2 We shall restrict our submissions to
two areas: standard fees and the proposals, which Lord Carter
took from the LSC, for Community Legal Advice Centres as the form
in which social welfare law services should be provided.
3. STANDARD FEES
3.1 You will no doubt receive much evidence
about standard fees in respect of all areas of work. We share
the fears expressed by many. Lord Carter's remark at paragraph
87 of Chapter 3 that "A move towards standard fees should
give greater responsibility to supplies as they would be required
to organise their work within the fixed fee" could simply
be a euphemism for reducing the quality of work.
3.2 No research appears to have been done
into the relationship between the levels of tailored fixed fees
and quality of work as found on peer review. Along with a very
small number of firms our peer review rating is "excellent".
Our TFFs are considerably higher than the national or London rates.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that other firms providing a good
quality of service also have higher TFFs. However, LSC statistics
show that most firms are of "threshold competence" or
worse. Clearly that affects the national rates of fixed fees.
Imposing national or regional rates is likely to run counter to
LSC plans, which we support, to improve quality.
3.3 The existing TFFs do not cover the cost
of the service we are providing. We only survive because we can
recover party costs at market rates in the cases we win. Therefore
reducing the fixed fees will make it difficult for us to continue.
We are not interested in working within a service where we cannot
maintain proper professional standards. We pulled out of immigration
work after we found that a quality service was impossible under
the funding arrangements introduced in 2004. If necessary we would
have to consider doing the same in other areas of work if they
are not properly funded.
4. COMMUNITY
LEGAL ADVICE
CENTRES
4.1 It is clear from the Carter report that
the inquiry spent much less time and resources considering the
provision of civil legal services than were devoted to criminal
legal services. As a result the report appears to endorse plans
by the LSC for the wholesale re-shaping of social welfare law
services which are not supported by any research and have not
been the subject of any consultation.
4.2 We attach an article by Ole Hansen published
in the August edition of Legal Action which sets out the
flawed basis for the LSC's plans to set up Community Legal Advice
Centres. The LSC has not challenged anything said in that article.
4.3 The danger of the CLAC proposals is
that resources will be wasted in creating new forms of organisation
which will not improve but rather damage existing provision.
4.4 Furthermore:
4.4.1 The manner in which the LSC has misrepresentation
research in order to justify its proposals has exacerbated the
problem of "mistrust and suspicion" identified by Lord
Carter at paragraph 44 of the Executive Summary of his report;
4.4.2 The possibility that the LSC will terminate
contracts with preferred suppliers on a few months' notice if
it decides parachute a CLAC into a particular area has created
uncertainty which will make it very difficult for any market based
reforms to work.
4.5 We would therefore urge the Committee
to look very carefully at these proposals by the LSC.
October 2006
| 
