MoJ admits transcription error cost firm legal aid contract

A 'basic transcription' error has cost a leading criminal firm a legal aid contract, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has revealed.

Despite Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson (EFBW) providing criminal defence services in the East End for over a century, the firm failed in its bid for one of the controversial duty solicitor contracts offered by the government.

EFBW was informed by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) in October that it had been unsuccessful in applying for the contract covering Hackney, Newham, and Tower Hamlets. Along with almost 100 other firms, EFBW brought a legal challenge against the results of the procurement process in each area.

However, the LAA has now admitted that EFBW would have been awarded a contract in Hackney but for a transcription error that marked them down. The admission follows other recently revealed mistakes by the MoJ in respect of online forms relating to divorce and prisoner release.

The LAA has refused to settle the firm's claim, though, instead filing a defence admitting the fault but failing to acknowledge the severe consequences it caused the firm. EFBW has now filed a summary judgment application with the court.

Jamie Potter, a partner at Bindmans representing EFBW, said the procurement process had been dogged by controversy since first proposed by Chris Grayling.

'The consultation process was exposed as unfair by the first judicial review brought, but the scheme was reintroduced and upheld in principle by the second judicial review,' he added.

'Now permission has been granted in a third judicial review and over 100 procurement claims are underway about how contracts were awarded, with serious allegations of inadequate training, hurried marking, and a convoluted moderation process. The error in this case may have been small, but its consequences were extremely serious.

'The Lord Chancellor and the LAA must look for a way out of this litigation outside of the courtroom.'

Paul Harris, EFBW's managing partner, said: 'The LAA has now admitted a basic transcription error that cost my firm a contract. The number of contracts we are awarded significantly affects the extent to which we are able to continue as a business, including as to the number of staff we can employ.

'Can the LAA realistically say that such errors have not been made in respect of other bids by us or by other firms? In the absence of such an assurance, surely at least a whole-scale review and/or re-marking is required instead of continuing to pursue inevitably costly litigation.

'Livelihoods should not be undermined by the typing of a 1 instead of a 2 and firms should not be required to bring legal challenges to uncover such errors.'

As one of the solicitors that led engagement with the MoJ on behalf of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA) and the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) last summer, Harris implored the Lord Chancellor to 'take a fresh look and find a way out of this mess'.

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

Copyright & permissions