header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Best value bidding will harm quality, Bar group warns

News

An independent group of lawyers and other professionals has criticised the “paucity” of detail in the Legal Services Commission’s proposals for Best Value Tendering (BVT) for criminal legal aid.

The Bar Council’s working group on BVT, responding this week to the LSC’s consultation paper in December, warns the proposals are likely to damage quality of provision, reduce choice and harm diversity. BVT introduces a market-driven approach to legal aid procurement and would see firms bidding for the right to provide the work. However the working group— made up of senior barristers, a former president of the General Medical Council, a former Court of Appeal Judge, a former Law Society president, and a leading professor of economics—slates the LSC for providing too little detail. Desmond Browne QC, chair of the group, says: “The paucity of detail provided by the LSC has made it impossible for the working group to comment on the proposals in a meaningful way.” The group supports the view of the House of Commons’ constitutional affairs select committee, which described the proposals for BVT as “a breathtaking risk”. It expresses concern about the absence of a robust mechanism for ensuring quality, and cite a report in 2000, which shows that BVT drove down quality and lowered the quality of representation when it was introduced in the US. Tim Dutton QC, chair of the Bar Council, says: “‘The Bar Council is surprised that the LSC has not published any details of the proposed scheme, nor conducted any analysis of the potential impact on quality or on ethnic minority clients. This is remarkable since the LSC’s own experts MDA, as well as the constitutional affairs select committee, advised them that a full impact assessment was vital before any proposals were developed.

“If the proposals are implemented and extended to the Crown Court, they will damage access to justice for BME clients, as well as the diversity of the Bar and, by extension, the judiciary. Such a development would clearly not be in the public interest, and is something I am determined to resist.” An LSC spokesperson says: “Subject to the outcome of the current consultation we will undertake a further consultation later in 2008.

“We believe that moving to a competitive market for most legal aid work is the best way to deliver quality services at the best possible price. Stringent quality standards are at the centre of the proposals and firms will have to meet these before being allowed to bid for legal aid work.”

More than two-thirds of solicitors say they are “strongly against” the LSC’s proposals, in a recent Law Society survey.

Issue: 7311 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll