Let me be the first to admit that I was wrong.  After the Law Society won the greater part of the legal argument last week in its judicial review case against the Government's quango, the Legal Services Commission (LSC), I had expected there to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the media against the "reactionary, anti-progressive and over-paid" legal profession. But no, this has not happened. It seems the Legal Services Commission claims it won the case.  Says Carolyn Regan, Chief Executive of the Commission:

"I am obviously pleased that the Court has confirmed that it is lawful for the Legal Services Commission to amend the unified contract to introduce the new civil legal aid fee schemes from October 2007."

In fact the matter of fee schemes was an inconsequential legal side issue in the case.  As I understood matters, having been obliged to waste a part of my life reading legal aid materials, including the old legal aid contract and new Unified Contract, the Legal Services Commission (and its previous incarnation, the Legal Aid Board) had always possessed the means, one way or another, to introduce fee schemes, including fixed fees.  It had done so before - firstly by way of fixed fees for criminal work in the Magistrates' Court and later in 2001 for Counsel instructed in family cases, the so-called graduated fees scheme.  The main thrust of the Law Society's case, which was accepted by the Judge, was that some of the powers claimed by the Legal Services Commission to unilaterally amend the new Unified Contract were incompatible with current Law.

And yet Government seeks to convince us that the Age of Spin is over.  Perhaps it should tell its agencies.

The Law Society successfully challenges the Legal Services Commission

“Rather like that harbinger cat recently discovered in an American nursing home for the elderly (the creature’s habit being to curl up on the beds of those residents who are not far from their final hour) a group of right-wingers, reactionaries and xenophobes styling themselves as Tory columnists has been acting as a false friend to the party, drawn towards everything that is morbid within its body politic, sucking it towards its grave. Who knows (and I doubt) whether the voters take much notice, but the parliamentary Conservative Party does.”

Matthew Parris - The Times

Once again, Mr Parris tells it as it is.

So, today in the High Court Mr Justice Beatson has upheld The Law Society's challenge against the Legal Services Commission (LSC) for having imposed unilaterally upon legal aid practitioners the new (and grossly one-sided) "Unified Contract".  Says the Law Society,

"The judge said that the LSC has breached Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and European Law in its reform of legal aid. Most significantly, the judge said that changes to the contract should not be made if they would, 'alter the economic balance of the contract to the disadvantage of those who have entered into the Unified Contract or to the disadvantage of some of them.'  The judge also noted that any proposed changes should be restricted to those envisaged by the initial White Paper. It is not clear at this stage how this will affect the LSC's proposals on fees and the Judge has granted the Law Society permission to appeal on the basis of public interest on this point…"

Well, this is what happens when you try to introduce ill conceived, half-baked reforms at breakneck speed.  It will be interesting to see the Government and the majority of the mainstream media spin this into a victory by lawyers (including the Judge) against the common interest.

A Home Information Pack, anyone?

"If services are cut as a result of the legal aid reforms I don't think I'm being unduly cynical in expecting the vast majority of media comment to accuse overpaid lawyers of letting down the public because the Government has stopped the gravy train."

Kit O' Brien

It is worth fighting to save the least loved branch of the welfare state - Jonathan Freedland

“People throw the charge of “racist” around far too freely today and fail to separate inconsequential prejudice from all-consuming intolerance,”

writes Nick Cohen in his book, What’s Left? How Liberals lost their way.

Likewise for instance, charges such as “sexist” and “homophobe” are too freely made, most usually as a first resort by the feeble-minded in support of a lame argument.