Crime duty contract award an 'omnishambles'

The legal aid crime duty solicitor tendering process, which has long been mired in controversy, was yesterday described as 'beyond contempt', a 'disgrace', and an 'omnishambles' by exasperated criminal lawyers.

Billed as 'D-Day for legal aid', firms across the country discovered if they were among the lucky few to have won one of the new duty contracts to provide 24-hour police station coverage. Some firms, however, had to wait until midnight to discover their fates, as frustration boiled over on social media.

With gallows humour, Dean Kingham, head of the prison law, crime, and public law at Swain & Co made comparisons with football: 'With transfer deadline day rarely does your team get screwed, but today that seems to be main focus for many.'

Ben Hoare Bell partner Cris McCurley pointed out: 'As [Bill Shankly] said: "It's not a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that".'

One would have hoped the Legal Aid Agency's (LAA) embarrassing delay in revealing the tender results - as well as reports from the Law Gazette of a botched procurement process - would have led to a triple checking for glaring errors in yesterday's mass dispatch of notifications.

Following the revelations, the London Criminal Court Solicitors Association (LCCSA) and Criminal Law Solicitors Association wrote to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to express their 'deep concerns' and request the award announcements be paused pending an investigation.

The MoJ, unsurprisingly, rejected the allegations and moved ahead with the notification process, where it soon became apparent that mistakes had been made. Thanks to the wonder that is social media, news of such errors travelled fast.

Writing on Facebook, Lyndon Davies, a solicitor at Oslers, could hardly contain his frustration: 'Our firm has just been offered a Cheshire contract. The problem is we only applied in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk... F****** shambles.'

Meanwhile, David Gilmore, a director at DGL Legal, advised on Twitter: 'One duty firm has just lost out today as they "failed to discuss their delivery partner arrangements" despite no partners being on the bid!'

Gilmore later updated the hordes of anxious solicitors with more bad news: 'It's happened again. Same firm different area. Missed out by one place because of "ghost" delivery partners. Cut and pasting errors?'

As venerable legal blogger David Allen Green highlighted earlier this week: 'Only the MoJ could legally bungle-up a procurement exercise for "legal services" where every aggrieved bidder can and will sue.'

There appeared to be more sighs of relief than fist-bumping and wild jubilation from those who had received a golden ticket from the MoJ. As Quinn Melville partner Zoe Gascoyne commented: 'It's a sad day when people feel relief at having obtained a contract that facilitates the decimation of quality criminal legal aid lawyer[s].'

Of course, yesterday's revelations were not catastrophic for all. Having taken to the golf course to avoid watching the 'farce evolve', Tuckers's Franklin Sinclair later returned to inform his legal aid colleagues: 'Finally it's over! Very pleased to say that Tuckers have won all 18 contracts we bid for!'

For those firms that do not have - as described by Sinclair - 'the best systems and infrastructure you could have', Bindmans has provided guidance on how to challenge the process. LCCSA president Jonathan Black has confirmed that several firms are receiving legal advice this morning ahead of possible action.

Commenting on the LAA announcement yesterday, Black said: 'It is no time for winners to be triumphant; although their firms can breathe a little longer, the terms are likely to make it difficult to manage a practice effectively and to provide a quality service. More importantly it is the cruel manner in which many well established firms providing employment opportunities and acres to justice to local people are facing the precipice.'

In addition, Law Care told SJ this morning that it stands ready to give support to all those solicitors affected. It seems a safe bet to venture that we have not heard the end of the latest ministry of injustice debacle.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD

Copyright & permissions