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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll