Julian,
Royal Commissions are set up to postpone decisions, not to make them.............

As a freelance i dont have the figures that the rest of you have to make a decision, but it seems obvious to me that the PPE point is dependent on getting that work in the first place and most firms dont get that work regularly enough, so the 8.75% is probably more important for survival.

As for senior Solicitors not representing the MH client, lets be realistic. When I represent such a case on a first virtual appearance and it looks like a series of remands for a hospital bed, I always ask the instructing firm if they really want me to to do the 2nd bail app and apply for a rep order; some tell me not to and they include firms that I rate as competent and caring. I dont blame them, it can end up with me doing 5 appearances whist the medics faff about and the conscientious firm loses money.

The MOJ have logic on their side when they say that the work of a S36 is the same as a rep order case. the point is that the whole system of pay rates is so skewed that we rely on rates that are hard to justify to balance the rates that are too low - and that is the MOJ's fault - and that is not going to change

On 12 February 2017 at 15:10, Tony Marshall <Tony@alexander-johnson.co.uk> wrote:
That s a perfect world Julian which we don t have. The reality is we have never shown a united front and never will. Look at what happened with previous changes and many firms broke ranks and touted for work etc.
You re right we are hostages to fortune which is why when current rates are just viable (in my view a lot to do with payments on PPE large cases) why put your head above the parapet? FFQC did and we and the junior bar and HCA's will pay the price

Tony Marshall
Solicitor
Alexander Johnson
Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Feb 2017, at 15:06, Julian Young <julianyoung@jylaw.co.uk> wrote:

So we accept yet another cut - this may embolden the LAA/MOJ to impose further cuts whenever they feel like it. 

Surely to goodness we should be able to plan our collective futures - assuming that there is any real future in publicly funded defence work?

How can any business be expected to have a viable and honest business plan when one party to the contract can change almost any terms and conditions almost at will?

Again, just wondering ...

If, of course, there was a Royal Commission to set out basic and fair rules (sorry to raise this again) - or an independent committee which could set remuneration rates ...

Julian Young
I agree with accepting the s38 cut and maintaining the 10,000 PPE, 8.75% cut a difficult pill to swallow but I will side with the majority on this one.


Kind Regards

Attiq Malik
Solicitor-Advocate 
Liberty Law Solicitors

On 12 Feb 2017, at 10:50, Paul Harris <Paulh@efbw.co.uk> wrote:

Why are you so sure it is the fault of Francis Fitzgibbon, I mean maybe it is, but how come you are so sure

 

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  

<image001.png><image002.jpg> <image003.png>

 

 

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Tony Marshall
Sent: 12 February 2017 10:46
To: Paul Harris <Paulh@efbw.co.uk>
Cc: Liz Sargeant <Liz@needhampoulier.co.uk>; Bruce Reid <brucerzzz@googlemail.com>; Anthony Branley <ab@gbsols.co.uk>; Chris Bennett <chris.bennett@bennett-law.co.uk>; Jonathan Black <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>; Tim Walker <twalker@smw-law.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: Re: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees

 

That s where is lawyers go wrong we assume the public will blame us. They won t they ll blame the government. If they do blame us so what? I ve got a thick skin but I m not doing this stressful unforgiving job for nothing.

My position is we accept legal aid rates for s.38's (and very few firms, if any, will do them), swallow the 8.75% cut but keep the 10,000 PPE.

This is all the fault of Francis Fitzgibbon!

Tony Marshall

Solicitor

Alexander Johnson

Sent from my iPhone


On 12 Feb 2017, at 10:37, Paul Harris <Paulh@efbw.co.uk> wrote:

The fact there is an advice desert for wife beaters will not concern a vote bank but if that desert leads to defendants cross examining complainants in person , that may cause a concern although of course it will be the lawyers who will be painted as the bad guys

 

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  

<image003.png><image004.jpg> <image005.png>

 

 

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Liz Sargeant
Sent: 10 February 2017 15:24
To: 'Bruce Reid' <brucerzzz@googlemail.com>; Anthony Branley <ab@gbsols.co.uk>
Cc: Chris Bennett <chris.bennett@bennett-law.co.uk>; Jonathan Black <jonathanb@bsbsolicitors.co.uk>; Tim Walker <twalker@smw-law.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees

 

Anthony is right, the position is very different at Highbury.  The touts have 5 or 6 advocates floating, looking to pick up anything.  They will clean up, may not do a great job, but you get what you pay for (sometimes…)

Liz Sargeant

 

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Bruce Reid (via members list)
Sent: 10 February 2017 15:15
To: Anthony Branley
Cc: Chris Bennett; Jonathan Black; Tim Walker; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: Re: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees

 

Interesting point about touts, my experience of them is that they are not interested in anything that sounds like immediate and demanding work. i dont think they will bother. I dont think a boycott will work, for the usual reasons - lack of solidarity and the fact that the LAA dont care anyway.They will set the low rate, say that Defendants are provided for and "that's off my desk, mate". The fact that there is an advice desert for spouse-beaters is not going to concern a vote bank...........

 

On 10 February 2017 at 15:00, Anthony Branley <ab@gbsols.co.uk> wrote:

There is not the slightest chance of any boycott ever enjoying widespread support in London. See the touts referred to by JB below. London is brim full of them.

 

Anthony Branley

Principal

 

 

<image006.jpg>

 

GALBRAITH BRANLEY
SOLICITORS

18 FRIERN PARK
NORTH FINCHLEY
LONDON
N12 9DA

 

020 8446 8474

Emergency No. 07831 166462

 

www.galbraithbranley.com

 

<image007.jpg>

Authorised and Regulated by The Solicitors Regulation Authority-SRA No.614583

This e-mail is sent for and on behalf of Galbraith Branley Solicitors. Its contents and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not an intended recipient the dissemination and/or copying of the e-mail and its attachments are prohibited. If you have received this in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete the e-mail completely from your system.

 

Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Galbraith Branley for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use.

 

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'; 'Jonathan Black'
Cc: 'Tim Walker'; 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.      https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/lgfs-and-court-appointees/supporting_documents/impactassesments38courtappointees.pdf

 

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.

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.