Is it clear whether this would include payment of travel and waiting time as is not done under Rep Orders but is done under DCOs?
Without a fixed fee to absorb some of the t&w (I know, hilarious) then I can’t see how these could be taken on – the number of times
we have been sent a s.38 order the day before the hearing such that preparation has to be done largely at court, only to turn up to find another firm present with a Rep Order, means that travel and waiting can be the bulk of the time spent. If it’s not being
paid then we could ending up working for free.
Agree with Steven Bird’s suggestion about non means tested Rep Orders. This would also avoid the situation described above and the
incredible waste of paying 2 firms because the LAA and courts don’t communicate.
Sonia Weaver
Paralegal
Shaw Graham Kersh Solicitors
35 Great Marlborough Street
London
W1F 7JF
Tel: 020 7734 9700
Fax: 020 7734 4340
DX: 37219 Piccadilly
Secure Email:
sonia.weaver@sgksolicitors.cjsm.net
NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must
not read, use or disseminate that information. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Shaw Graham Kersh for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof.
Security warning: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is a means of communication which
is not 100% secure. We advise you to take into account this lack of security when e-mailing us.
Partners: Paul Graham - Daniel Kersh - Philip Hill - Raymond Shaw
This firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. No: 303014
From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk]
On Behalf Of Steven Bird
Sent: 10 February 2017 13:41
To: 'Jonathan Black' <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>; 'members@mail.lccsa.org.uk' <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk>
Subject: RE: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
The answer is to grant non means tested legal aid on these cases in my view.
Hopefully on legal aid rates most firms will not deal with s38 cases. The fee on each case would probably be in the region of £200 max – nothing to get excited
about. It would be really good if there could be a unity on this tiny issue among the profession. Boycott s38s – how easy is that!?
Steven Bird |
Managing Director
Birds Solicitors
61 Wandsworth High Street
| Wandsworth | London | SW18 2PT| DX 59062 WANDSWORTH NORTH
T: 020 8874 7433 |
DDI: 020 3657 7260 | F: 020 8870 4770
E:
s.bird@birds.eu.com
| W: www.birds.eu.com
Follow us on
Twitter
P
Please consider the environment before printing this email
The information in this e-mail (which includes any files transmitted with it) is confidential and may
also be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. Unauthorised recipients are required to maintain confidentiality. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately,
destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system. Any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. Copyright in this e-mail and any document created by us and sent as an attachment to this e-mail will be and remain
vested in us and will not be transferred to you.
Birds Solicitors is a trading name of Birds Solicitors Limited, a company registered under company number 07191888. The registered
office of Birds Solicitors Limited is 61 Wandsworth High Street, London SW18 2PT. Birds Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under SRA No. 534497
From:
members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Black
Sent: 10 February 2017 13:32
To: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
5. We consider that, despite the fact that this can be a sensitive task, the work of court appointees under section 38 or section 4A is in reality no different to that undertaken
by lawyers acting for a defendant under legal aid. Therefore we propose capping such costs at legal aid rates, as we have already done in relation to Defendants’ Costs Orders. There is no reason to pay a premium for this work just because payment is made from
central funds rather than the legal aid budget. The work involved and time required to prepare is little different from many legal aid cases.
Sent from my iPhone
To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.