Law Society president calls for parley between MoJ and criminal solicitors

The Law Society has called for an independent review of the controversial criminal legal aid duty contract procurement process as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) postpones their implementation.

The call for action follows the widespread litigation brought by unsuccessful legal aid firms who have expressed concerns that the evaluation process used by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) was 'flawed'.

Action has been brought in 69 of the 85 procurement areas, meaning the LAA will be forced to defend itself in over 100 challenges. To consolidate the actions, an application for a group litigation order has been made by the agency.

The LAA has subsequently pushed back the start of the divisive new contracts to 1 April 2016 rather than 11 January, as previously planned.

Responding to the news, the chairman of the Bar, Alistair MacDonald QC, welcomed the decision to postpone the implementation of the duty scheme.

'The Bar Council continues to have serious concerns about the effects of dual contracting on solicitor colleagues,' he commented. 'We believe that these measures are likely seriously to damage access to justice and the provision of high quality advocacy services in England and Wales.'

The MoJ has said it will set up interim rotas based on new contracts on current terms until the end of March but the Law Society has expressed doubt that the ministry can deal with the litigation as swiftly as it believes.

Looking ahead, the Law Society has urged the MoJ to intervene and review as 'a matter of the upmost urgency' given the 'crippling uncertainty' and 'on-going and significant delays'.

The society has identified the total estimated value of the contracts subject to legal challenge amount to £154,724,214. Proceedings issued by firms means £132,957,564, or 85.9 per cent, is currently subject to legal action.

The society's president, Jonathan Smithers, remarked: 'The cost of litigation to defend a process which is subject to such a significant number of legal challenges is a waste of public money at a time when the MoJ, like all government departments, is under serious financial pressure.

Smithers added that solicitors were also facing costly litigation because of the 'significant and widespread concerns' that the evaluation process was 'flawed'.

'Instead of undertaking such a costly approach at this late stage, a thorough appraisal would be more cost effective than mass litigation and it would offer more certainty for all involved,' he said.

'Our members are telling us that firms are at risk of collapse as a result of continuing to operate at reduced rates without the consolidation the MoJ, wrongly in our view, claimed would make the cuts survivable,' he continued.

Matthew Rogers is an editorial assistant at Solicitors Journal matthew.rogers@solicitorsjournal.co.uk