Have people seen the consultation document 'Legal Aid: a sustainable future' that was published alongside the Carter review yesterday?

p28-31 will be particularly alarming to any provider that uses LSC contract work to predominantly or solely deliver high end lengthy cases.

A fixed fee for each case is proposed- for welfare benefits either a flat national rate of £143 per case or a varying regional rate (the highest being £223 per case for London and the lowest being £94 per case for Merseyside).

There is no distinction made for the type of work done with in the WB category (so therefore if, for example, you want to do a lengthy commissioners case for one client you'll always have to balance it out against a few short benefit's check for other clients). Exceptions will be made, but only by applying a case by case basis when the value exceeds 4 times the normal rate (p73-4).

The proposal is that, for NFP contracts this would initially be implemented next April by introducing minimum cases starts that reflect the fixed rates.

So...what do people make of that?

Paul

more on this in rightsnet policy news @ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1336-6106-4015+policy

Why are we the lowest? Is it because we have so many providers - every other pub is full of bar room lawyers!

If implemented in the format of the proposals this will fundamentally change the way in which agencies deliver specialist advice and casework to clients. The proposals on debt are evenmore far reaching when comparing the proposed case price to the current average case times in the not for profit sector. As i understand it casework on behalf of clients will almost become a thing of the past and agencies will be almost incentivised into seeking clients who do no tpresent with time consuming factors- mental health, speakers of other languages etc.
I think it is critical that anyone working under the Legal Help regime responds to this as the changes are so fundamental to working practices. We have already made a number of relatively unpalatable changes to the way in which we work inpreparation for prefered supplier scheme, but these proposals go even furhter than we had originally considered.

Having read the document further, it also appears level 1 one is to be removed, thus reducing our ability to develop into new areas of work- e.g level1 is very useful when stteing outreach work, for example in GP surgeries as it enables a small amount of work to be done before the finanacial eligibility check is needed.

Anyone who works under the Legal Help system must read this document!!!

I hear the death knell for CABs and Not for Profits everywhere.

With local government funding being cut left, right and centre and the emphasis on 'new projects' from other funders, CABs have come to rely on LSC funding to survive.

I consider myself to be a reasonably experienced and efficient adviser, but I know I cannot take on 335 new cases a year whilst maintaining any semblance of providing a quality service to my clients.

335 cases means 7-8 new cases a week, week in week out. Where's the time for follow up work?

Maybe solicitors can complete a benefits case in 3.2 hours - I would be really interested to see a case, to see what level of assistance they actually provide, but regardless of that, we all know that the kinds of clients that solicitors get and the kind that CABs get are different. Our clients are the most vulnerable and most excluded.

How many bureau can survive on payments in arrears??

Where's the access to justice in no disbursements - no obtaining medical evidence to support our clients' cases, no home visits for those not able to travel or use the phone?

So what do we do? Accept the changes, continue to work until we drop, try to get volunteers to take on some cases to make up the case starts? Forget our values, say sod the clients and just notch up as many cases as possible?

You never know, we might be missed when we're gone.

I must admit i am surprised at the lack of response and outrage from the sector so far. Presumably at some point some bright spark in a LA then uses the scheme to benchmark LA welfare rights services against. Then we are all in bother!!

We are part of a consortium of CAB and i know that the consortium have taken up the issue with the powers that be - with what success we have yet to see.

Nicky

Thats a poem. A wasted talent obviously!

I did think that when i wrote but didn't know how else to put it!!!!

Jaykay,

"...Maybe solicitors can complete a benefits case in 3.2 hours - I would be really interested to see a case, to see what level of assistance they actually provide, but regardless of that, we all know that the kinds of clients that solicitors get and the kind that CABs get are different..."

Sorry, i know this is a bit off the subject but I really must take issue with this perception. I currently work in a solicitors practice, I also spent many years in CAB in numerous capacities inclding front line work at generalist and specialist levels.

We are the only franchisees for social security law (and in fact debt and housing) in the county. We are a (very) small firm with a long history of comitment to publicly funded work and we receive referrals from numerous social welfare organistions including CAB.

I'm not sure what you mean by solicitor and CAB clients being different. I think your implication is that clients approaching a solicitor's practice are not in such need, perhaps richer, more articulate or less deprived. This, I can assure you is a falacy. If anything the cases I receive now involve problems that are far more complex, entrenched and desperate, with clients that have far greater needs. OK, this is only a generalisation but on the whole I think it is accurate.

As far as what a solicitor can do in 3.2 hours, well, all I can really say is that I don't support the fixed fee scheme either but in private practice we have been subject to a similar scheme for some time and the idea is (the reality is another matter of course) that shorter, simpler, perhaps one off advice type cases add up to average out the more complex ones. As I say, whether this works in reality is another question. And in 3.2 hours? Well, I think what has to be understood that under contract there is an awful lot of work that goes on which does not count toward the costs. Admin, typing, organising files, archiving, copying and dealing with the burocracy of the funding regime are all excluded. If you write a letter you can only claim a 'fee' that is equivalent to about 4 minutes work. Every attendance, every piece of research, all the time spent on say preparing a submission has to be recorded and JUSTIFIED on file and is open to be reduced by the LSC if they think you could have done it quicker. So a claim of 3.2 hours on a file probably equates to double that in real time.

And if you think that in private practice we all have so much legal aid money that we dont know what to do with think again. I earn approximatley 50% of what I could earn in the not for profit sector. And as far as my firm is concerned, public funding rates are about 30% of what an average solicitor would charge privatly. Add to that all the pro bono and unclaimable work that comes with having a franchise and reputation for this type of work and figure looks more like 15%.

Sorry to rant, its not your fault, I just couldn't let your comments go unresponded.

I consider it's essential we do not to get caught up in an NFP's vs Solicitors debate. Irrespective of whether you are working in private practice of an NFP, if you wish to deliver quality legal advice through legal aid then you will have to work within the same, increasingly tough, financial regime.

Ultimately, everyone will be under the same system. The Fixed Fee that solicitors currently work to is 'Tailored' to the individual practice (and based on their past average). The new fixed fee scheme will apply to everyone and will presumably hit solicitors specialising in complex cases as much as NFP's. Ultimately the fixed fee will be replaced by a market fee- i.e. the lowest bid for a contract wins.

The problem is that getting outcomes for clients means doing work for them and this takes time. Therefore, if your endpoint is 'Client receives new or higher regular payment', your casetime is likely to be significantly higher than if it is 'client advised and taking action themselves'. (this is not just anecdotal- recent analysis of NFP case times confirms this).

At lasa, the nature of our service (benefit appeals referred from other agencies) is such that we simply don't have short cases to balance out the short ones and I'd be really interested to hear from any other organistations in similar positions.

I will post our response to the Consultation to this thread next month, perhaps others could do the same?

Paul

Completely agree with all your points and as I said, sorry that I was ranting, I have no intention of starting a NFP v Sol debate, just felt that the earlier post needed a response to dispell any myth that public work in private practice was a bed of roses!

I realise I'm the odd one out here but I've always thought the way LSC fund casework to be bizarre. In my experience other funders are primarily concerned with outcomes achieved. The LSC is alone in it's obsession with time spent. Indeed, LSC funding is almost a disincentive to working efficiently and speedily to resolve a customer’s benefit issues.

Also, I’ve never been convinced of the need to spend 5 or 6 hours on anything other than the most complex of benefits cases so I am less concerned about the averages mentioned. Most welfare benefits casework can be completed effectively within 3 hours. The local authority provides 90% of our funding and we strive to deliver value for money in return. Efficient and effective casework which involves promptly bringing cases to closure is an important part of this. I would qualify these comments by saying that we are a front line service and deal with a wide range of enquiries from the very simple to the extremely complex. A lot of our enquiries are resolved at the first contact or shortly afterwards which brings down our average.

I would hope that the move to funding per case will be an improvement but the whole thing is fundamentally flawed in respect of welfare benefits at least because it will be very easy to split welfare benefits cases into several matter starts. It's not good customer care or even good use of resources but it would be easy enough to create three separate cases out of a customer who presents himself with a DLA appeal but who is also in receipt of Income Support etc.

Personally, I would still like to see further changes that introduced criteria based on outcomes achieved for customers, such as benefit obtained.

My other concerns with the document are that the Quality Mark appears to being marginalised when, with some improvement, it could become a reasonable guarantee of the quality of advice provided. And, having had experience of peer review during the pilot, I am concerned at its quality and that it is not sufficiently independent.

There's a forum where you can specifically discuss the changes at:

http://legalaidandme.proboards81.com

and to join in this debate - i'm a senior solicitor (qualified 1991) but the only person in the firm with any sort of grasp/experience of welfare benefits matters (going back to it being part of my degree course in the mid 1980's) .... and i find that the lsc assume that the work will be done by junior staff and take very littel time. even for a trainee or paralegal, the amount allowed for a benefits matter WILL NOT pay for the time actually spent;

i shall stop before i rant too much as well.....

LSC contract caseworker (welfare benefits)

Pro forma Person Specification – Post Carter

I thought you might find this useful…

Essential Qualities for the successful candidate…

1. You will need to be deeply superficial, relishing cases such as “how do I get a pension forecast?” The successful candidate will probably find the phrase “new matter starts” curiously exciting.

2. You will be adept at choosing clients who can understand advice very quickly. The bureau stopwatch, prominent around your neck, will help focus the client. Don’t worry, the rules allow you to finish that final sentence, as long as it starts before the “times up!” alert.

3. Your favourite phrase is likely to be “refer on”, particularly when a case reaches a point when all your knowledge and experience would really make a difference. Remember what Sting said… “if you love somebody, set them free”…

4. Accordingly, you will be someone who is comfortable with doing all the initial spadework on cases, before handing them over or dropping them. “Specialist?” will be on the front of the T Shirt; “Water Carrier” goes on the back. Now you really are “making a difference”!

5. Nowhere to refer on to when the fee runs out? This is when your honed communication skills will click in. The successful candidate will be able to effectively explain (a) why all support for such a good case is being terminated, and (b) how the client can swiftly research and prepare that case law driven appeal submission, after all. A sort of “client empowerment”, without the option.

6. You will be a philosophical person. Insufficient “new matter starts” means insufficient fees to pay your salary. Your mortgage lender or landlord will need to be cool about this too.