Legal aid firms threaten action against MoJ over 'omnishambles' contract system
Exclusive: Michael Gove faces lawyers’ revolt after claims that bids were assessed by staff with no knowledge of legal aid
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.More than 50 solicitors’ companies are threatening to take the government to court over the “omnishambles” system of awarding legal aid contracts.
Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, faces the lawyers’ revolt following claims that bids for the work worth millions of pounds were assessed by agency staff with no knowledge of legal aid.
Their anger centres on an overhaul of the system under which solicitors are provided to represent people under arrest in police stations and magistrates courts in England and Wales. The number of contracts is being cut from 1,600 to 527 alongside reductions rates for the work, leading to warnings that smaller solicitors’ firms could struggle to survive and the quality of advice to the public diminished.
As companies learned this week whether they had been successful, a whistleblower claimed that staff hired by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) were unequal to the task of scrutinising 1,000 bids containing 50,000 responses to questions.
Freddie Hurlston, a senior manager at the agency’s predecessor, the Legal Services Commission, said many of the recruits came from a temporary staff agency on around £9.30 an hour and who received “very limited” training.
“It was clear after a few days of assessment that there were insufficient staff to assess all the questions with any quality,” he told the Law Society Gazette.
His claims, which have been strongly denied by the LAA, provoked fury among solicitors’ groups, who have protested over the delays over awarding the contracts which are due to come into force in January.
The leading London law firm Bindmans said it had already been contacted by 50 companies seeking advice about potential legal action.
John Halford, a partner at Bindmans and a specialist in public law, said that if the whistle-blower’s account of the procurement process was accurate, it was possible the agency had broken the law by failing to assess bids in a consistent way.
“The whistleblower’s description of the process suggests it has been done in a way that couldn’t possibly result in rational and lawful decisions. These are very serious matters he’s raised,” he said.
Mr Halford predicted that legal action could be mounted in every part of England and Wales and added: “This is a reduction in the number of firms authorised to do crime legal aid work on a massive and unprecedented scale. In many cases this will lead to those firms closing down.”
Jonathan Black, president of London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, said Mr Gove had “one final opportunity” to abandon the scheme he had inherited from Chris Grayling.
“It’s quite clear the government did not have a clear plan how to proceed on this and made it up as they went along,” he said.
“We have seen firms that have been long established in their localities declined an award, we’ve seen notifications of firms being granted awards which they hadn’t even applied for. To coin a phrase, it is an omnishambles.
“They are expecting the future of the profession to be formed on the basis of that omnishambles.”
Bill Waddington, the chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, predicted a “tsunami of litigation”. He said of the procurement process: “If you were trying to handle it badly, you couldn’t have done a better job.”
The LAA, which is an agency of the Ministry of Justice, denied the whistleblower’s claims and insisted the system of selecting contracts was legally watertight.
A spokesman said: “We have followed a robust and fair process in assessing duty tender bids. We have taken additional time to notify bidders precisely to make sure these important decisions are right.
“Assessors received a comprehensive training package to ensure transparent, consistent and fair treatment of all applicant organisations. The assessment process has been subject to careful moderation and management at all stages.”
But Karl Turner, the shadow Justice Minister, said: “This is yet another shambles from the Ministry of Justice.
“Not only was this policy flawed from the start, with experts warning that it could leave parts of the country without access to justice, but now the Government has made a complete mess of the process.
“Huge delays, errors and reports of inexperienced staff assessing bids are not only distressing for those whose jobs are at stake, they show a worrying level of incompetence on the part of the MoJ. This Government really needs to get its act together.”