header-logo header-logo

24 January 2008
Issue: 7305 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

VHCC contracts under pressure

Profession

The Very High Cost Cases (Crime) Panel is in a state of disarray after the Legal Services Commission (LSC) admitted that “a substantial number of barristers” refused to sign contracts by this week’s deadline.

Following the bid round, the LSC offered contracts to 330 solici­tor firms and 2,300 barristers. The LSC says that virtually all solicitor firms have signed, but that a large number of barristers have decided not to.

Under the new rates the daily advocacy fee for a QC drops from £525 to £476, and for a non-QC presenting a case alone from £330 to £285. Barristers without a contract will not be able to accept instructions on new publicly-funded VHCC cases—those likely to last 41 days or more in court.

In a letter to the Bar Council last week, Richard Collins, executive director (policy) at the LSC, warns that barristers refusing to sign could face legal action.

He wrote: “All that is required for a breach of the Competition Act 1998 is a ‘concurrence of wills’ or…that information supplied by any party is supplied to another with the intention of, or knowledge that, it will facilitate the making of an anti-competitive agreement. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, secrecy concerning the steps taken to enter into an arrangement to limit the supply of services is presumed by practitioners to establish the necessary dishonesty.

“If, as we suspect, a large number of advocates are consider­ing not signing the contract…and do not do so, particularly on a cham­bers basis, it will be an inevitable inference that some intervening event has caused a change of mind since they allowed their names to go forward in solicitors’ tenders.”

He concludes that where this conduct has arisen following discus­sions within the Bar more gener­ally, the case law indicates that a concerted practice may be inferred unless the parties have distanced themselves in writing and by their conduct. Bar chairman Tim Dutton QC says there has inevitably been discussion within the profession about contracts, rates, professional obliga­tions etc, but denies any breach of competition law.

He adds that the way the LSC organised the tender contributed towards the current stand-off, as many barristers—often at short notice—had to allow themselves to be included in a solicitor’s tender or lose all chance of even being able to consider signing a contract.

He adds: “If barristers are declining to sign, it seems likely this is because they are coming to the independent view, having carried out an examination of the proposed contracts (issued in final form as late as 7 January 2008) that the terms are simply not economically viable given the circumstances, nor acceptable on their merits.”

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