If there's no money for increases in legal aid rates ( and reductions) since 1996, can someone explain where the money has been found for MPs and Ministers' payrises, and civil and public servants' salary increases and bonuses? If there's no more money for the CJS, there cannot be more for many others who rely upon public funds.
A cynic might say that lawyers have little or no public sympathy or support, from the judiciary and media, and that there are no votes in paying lawyers from public funds.
We have no unions, cannot firm cartels, cannot strike and have no protection from LAA/MOJ ignoring responses to 'consultations', changing goal posts etc whenever they feel like it.
Just wondering ...
Julian Young
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 13:38, Tony Marshall <Tony@alexander-johnson.co.uk> wrote:
Well that s where we fundamentally disagree. Have a look what they have replaced PPE with for Counsel . . . cuts all round and Special Prep only when above 15 or 30,000 pages.PPE is the best paid regime we ve ever had. Why on earth do you want to get rid of the best paid regime we ve ever had?Maybe a dual system where firms can keep PPE and firms go down the route of Counsel?The regime that has replaced PPE for Counsel is a total disaster.
Tony MarshallSolicitorAlexander JohnsonSent from my iPhoneBut Tony one of the issues here is that you would rather take the cut than lose the 10,000 ppe.
I would rather more money for the lower cases, far better guidance on what constitutes special prep and how to claim it, in fact I think the page count system should be abolished full stop.
Paul Harris
Managing Partner
EDWARD FAIL BRADSHAW & WATERSON
402 Commercial Road, London E1 0LG
DX: 300701 Tower Hamlets
Tel: +44 (0) 207 790 4032
Fax: +44 (0) 207 790 2739
Secure Email: main@efbw.co.uk.cjsm.net
Website: www.efbw.co.uk
From: Tony Marshall [mailto:Tony@alexander-johnson.co.uk]
Sent: 12 February 2017 13:15
To: Jonathan Black <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>
Cc: bh@hechtmontgomery.co.uk; Julian Young <julianyoung@jylaw.co.uk>; Paul Harris <Paulh@efbw.co.uk>; Bruce Reid <brucerzzz@googlemail.com>; Chris Bennett <chris.bennett@bennett-law.co.uk>; Tim Walker <twalker@smw-law.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: Re: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
I am afraid the chances of greater remuneration is just unrealistic. They ll never bring back payment for travel and waiting and any changes will result in reduction overall. History has taught me that criminal Legal Aid never ever results in anything but a reduction in fees.
I don t read what FFQC now says following his 10% increase in fees and a reduction for the rank and file. The damage has already been done.
History has also taught me that in London at least we do not all stand together and show a united front when cuts are threatened.
Cuts will be imposed it s just a case of where the majority vote for them to fall. For my part I want to retain 10,000 PPE which is the only area I ve ever experienced where LA rates compare with private rates and reflect what we're worth.
I ll ignore FFQC for now.
Tony MarshallSolicitor
Alexander Johnson
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Feb 2017, at 13:01, Jonathan Black <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk> wrote:We can accept any cut . We can't accept 8.75 % nor can we agree to so s38 cases at legal aid rates or the reduction to 6000 until there has been a proper review of litigator fees for bottom to top the smaller cases deserve greater remuneration . We asked for a level playing field 15 months ago http://eepurl.com/bCu_5n
This is as Barbara a threat to smaller firms and suggests the endgame is to reduce the market through cuts .
Whether it's FFQC's fault or not will be determined if he says in his Monday message that he is opposed to the cuts and alternatives . Let's see what he says . It might be that he goes beyond simply saying " I urge you to respond "
But we shouldn't be thinking in terms of compromise at the moment .
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Feb 2017, at 11:32, Tony Marshall <Tony@alexander-johnson.co.uk> wrote:There are more cases with 10,000 pages these days and even if few and far between they more than make up the 8.75% we get for PS's and MC's fees.
My firm will struggle if the PPE cut comes in. I ve never made a profit from PS's and MC's fees. On those rates I don t see how any firms can other than pile it High and sell it cheap but you can only do that if you have huge volumes already
Tony MarshallSolicitor
Alexander Johnson
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Feb 2017, at 11:03, Barbara Hecht <bh@hechtmontgomery.co.uk> wrote:I don't think the 8.75% can be agreed to keep the PPE - the majority of firms try and survive on the average cases and the very big cases are few and far between.
Personally I don't see the s38 issue is such a major one - i don't think it will be less than legal aid - i.e. Rubbish but can live with it.
We have to go back to basics and the detailed financial assessments that show that firms can't survive with a further 8.75%. To be honest I haven't worked out as a new contract holder how firms survive without the cut.
The whole system needs an overhaul rather than picking at the edges.
Barbara Hecht
Hecht Montgomery Solicitors
Van Gogh House
Telephone: 020 7112 9188 Fax: 020 7112 4993 Mobile: 07930 328091
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged, it is intended for the use of the addressees named in the sender’s original message only. If you are not the intended recipient, any unauthorised review, use, re-transmission, dissemination, copying, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. Should you receive this message in error, please notify the sender at your earliest convenience and remove this message from your machine. The sender is neither liable for the proper nor complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its receipt and please note that the confidentiality of e-mail communication is not warranted. Any attachment with this message should be checked for viruses before being opened.
Provision of Service Regulations 2009: We comply with the above regulation by displaying the required details of our Professional Indemnity Insurance in our office. This firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Registration Number: 567087 www.sra.org
The Principal of this firm is Barbara Hecht
On 12 Feb 2017, at 10:54, Julian Young <julianyoung@jylaw.co.uk> wrote:The bargaining/negotiating positions are fragmented and unfairly balanced in favour of the LAA/MOJ, the representations made by the legal professional bodies are ignored, we have no real power with which to negotiate and now we have a gun held to our heads.
Is this fair, reasonable or proportionate to the financial problems indicated by the civil servants, who don't have pay cuts, take any financial risks, habitually work unsocial hours etc.
I don't have any answers, but this is all so depressing.
Julian Young
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 10:48, Tony Marshall <Tony@alexander-johnson.co.uk> wrote:
I agree but they re giving us a choice this time and I would rather keep the 10,000 PPE and lose rates on s.38's and accept 8.75% cut. We make nothing on PS and MC s cases anyway.
Tony MarshallSolicitor
Alexander Johnson
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Feb 2017, at 10:39, Paul Harris <Paulh@efbw.co.uk> wrote:The problem is Tony that there is little unity in London and it is the same few people each time who get left to organise such opposition, also we can object all we like, the MOJ do not listen
Paul Harris
Managing Partner
EDWARD FAIL BRADSHAW & WATERSON
402 Commercial Road, London E1 0LG
DX: 300701 Tower Hamlets
Tel: +44 (0) 207 790 4032
Fax: +44 (0) 207 790 2739
Secure Email: main@efbw.co.uk.cjsm.net
Website: www.efbw.co.uk
From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Tony Marshall
Sent: 10 February 2017 15:02
To: Chris Bennett <chris.bennett@bennett-law.co.uk>; 'Bruce Reid' <brucerzzz@googlemail.com>; 'Jonathan Black' <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>
Cc: 'Tim Walker' <twalker@smw-law.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
What a joke!!! This is all the doing of Francis Fitzgibbon of The Bar Council who has pushed for these changes!!! I agree we object to these changes and do everything we can to thwart them
Tony Marshall
Alexander Johnson Solicitors
246 Bethnal Green Road
London E2 0AA
Tel: 020 7739 1563
Fax: 020 7729 9326
The information contained in this email is intended for the named addressee only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee you must not copy or publish it. A full list of the firm’s partners is available for inspection at the address set out above. This firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You are advised to scan this message and any attachment for viruses. No responsibility can be accepted for viruses or damage caused by them. This firm does not accept service of proceedings by email. The partners of this firm do not monitor all outgoing emails and accept no responsibility for the contents of emails not related to the firm or its clients.
From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Chris Bennett
Sent: 10 February 2017 14:54
To: 'Bruce Reid' <brucerzzz@googlemail.com>; 'Jonathan Black' <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>
Cc: 'Tim Walker' <twalker@smw-law.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
Surely this is a boycott that everyone will agree on at last – for the reasons given by Bruce.
Chris Bennett
From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Reid (via members list)
Sent: 10 February 2017 14:36
To: Jonathan Black
Cc: Tim Walker; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: Re: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
We dont need a boycott, firms wont take them on....It will pay less than a summary trial and you cant get cover for those half the time given the going rate even now.
On 10 February 2017 at 14:13, Jonathan Black <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk> wrote:
No one will do s38 at these rates and they will become the bread and butter of court based touts which will be tolerated .
Both proposals come with the ultimatum - accept or we introduce second cut !
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:03, Tim Walker <twalker@smw-law.co.uk> wrote:Also see Part I para 9:
‘we propose reducing the 10,000 threshold for PPE and moving claims for pages in excess of 6,000 into the special preparation provisions. It is in cases with 6,000 or more pages that we have seen a significant increase in PPE caused in in part by electronic evidence now coming within the definition of PPE, most commonly mobile phone or computer downloads in serious drugs and fraud cases. Applying the special preparation provisions will mean that where there are more than 6,000 pages we will allow payment for work reasonably and actually undertaken.’
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.
Sonn Macmillan Walker is a trading name of Sonn Macmillan Walker Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales no. 7879842. The registered office is at Rennie House, 57-60 Aldgate High Street
London EC3N 1AL
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority no. 566039.
This communication and any attachment contains information which is confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please telephone +44 (0) 20 7481 9157 on receipt or notify the sender by e-mail. You should not disseminate or disclose the contents to any other person or take copies. Any items expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender states them to be those of Sonn Macmillan Walker.
You should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. We accept no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses or interception/interruption of this e-mail.
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.
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.
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.