of Legal Advice and Legal Work A Consultation Paper · PDF fileof Legal Advice and Legal Work A Consultation Paper April 2005. Independent Peer Review Consultation Paper April 2005Contents

Independent Peer Review of Legal Advice and Legal Work

A Consultation Paper

April 2005

Independent Peer Review Consultation Paper April 2005Contents Foreword .......................................................................................1

Executive Summary.......................................................................2

1 Introduction..............................................................................5

2 Independent Peer Review Methodology ..................................7

3 The Peer Reviewers ..............................................................14

4 The uses of Peer Review.......................................................22

5 Peer Review Logistics ...........................................................24

6 The peer review process .......................................................29

7 Peer Review outcomes and Reporting ..................................37

8 Identifying and Enabling Best Practice ..................................41

9 Equal Opportunities Impact Assessment ...............................42

10 Summary of Questions for the Consultation..........................45

Appendix 1 Peer Review Criteria and Guidance ..........................47

Appendix 2 Peer Reviewer Personal Specification ......................58

Appendix 3 Randomisation Tools ................................................60

Appendix 4 Peer Review Report..................................................61

Appendix 5 Peer Review Representations Pro Forma.................68

Appendix 6 Government Code of Practice Criteria ......................69

Appendix 7 Glossary of key terms ...............................................70

Independent Peer Review Consultation Paper

April 2005


April 2005

1

FOREWORD I am delighted to be able to commend to you the Peer Review Process, which the LSC plans to introduce nationally. This consultation paper provides the opportunity for all those involved in the provision of legal aid to help ensure the mechanism is fair and supported by the majority of suppliers. The provision of legal aid demonstrates society’s commitment to support and help some of its most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens. Without it, many at risk individuals would be unable to protect or enforce their rights under the law. The legal field is extensive, complex and difficult to understand for the majority of people. It is therefore vital that collectively we ensure that all recipients of legal aid are provided with a high quality of legal service and that our suppliers are recognised when they deliver advice at this level. I know the team responsible for developing the peer review process are looking forward to your suggestions and recommendations. I would like to thank them and those at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies who have devised the system described in this paper. The introduction of peer review is potentially the most significant step that the LSC has taken on the path to ensuring that quality legal service is available to all recipients of legal aid. Thank you for your support.

Clare Dodgson Chief Executive Legal Services Commission


April 2005

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Quality Mark is the quality assurance standard of the Community Legal Service (CLS) and Criminal Defence Service (CDS). The Specialist Quality Mark (SQM) is the quality assurance standard required for organisations to be awarded contracts to deliver legal aid services. The requirements of the Quality Mark relate to either establishing a well-run organisation (e.g. financial control, recruitment processes etc.) or ensuring the legal advice provided to clients is competent. The requirements relating to quality of advice include supervision, internal peer review through file review and training. However these requirements are proxies and not direct measures of quality. Whilst full compliance with these proxies should ensure any legal advice is, as a minimum, competent, it is not a guarantee. During the last few years, many legal practitioners and representative bodies have recommended that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) considers developing and introducing more direct assessments of the quality of advice, reducing or eliminating dependency on the existing proxies. The assessment mechanism universally recommended to achieve this is peer review. The LSC supports this view and has been developing a suitable peer review process for the last two to three years. In the initial stage of the developmental process the LSC decided to identify, if possible, a suitable existing methodology. One of the major reasons for this was the requirement, regarded as of paramount importance, to have a peer review process that was independent of the LSC i.e. the result of any review would not be decided upon or influenced by any member of the LSC. The process was required to be ‘an independent assessment by an experienced practitioner’. The peer review methodology identified as the most suitable was the process devised by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) for a research project into civil contracting and published in their report – ‘Quality and Cost – Final report on the contracting of civil, non-family advice and assistance pilot’. The peer review methodology outlined in this consultation paper has been developed directly from the IALS process and whilst many additional elements have been added to the original concept, it remains an independent process managed by IALS. The additional elements include extending the panel of reviewers to cover most categories of law, an extensive competency assessment process for peer reviewers, and a representations process. The LSC has undertaken many peer reviews during the past two years. Generally these have been for specific or targeted reasons for example for particular pilot projects, as an alternative to supervisor standards or to establish information relating to the quality of advice on a national scale i.e.


April 2005

3

the national benchmark for peer review. The purpose of this consultation paper is to ensure the final methodology will enable peer review to be used nationally, as a key measure and probably the most important measure, of the quality of advice and legal work provided by a supplier. Thus it will become an integral part of the LSC’s supplier management strategy. It is not the intention of this consultation paper to provide information on the LSC’s wider Supplier Management and Contracting strategy. This can be found in other consultation papers. The LSC believes the introduction of peer review into the supplier management strategy will achieve two vital objectives concerning safeguarding clients and supporting organisational development.

• Clients of the CLS and CDS are entitled to rely on a body such as the LSC, to ensure, on their behalf, that a member organisation of the CLS/CDS who offers legal advice and work, is providing it as a minimum at a competent level, or preferably higher.

Clients are generally unable to assess the quality of the legal advice they receive and are thus vulnerable to being given poor advice. In championing the needs of the client, the LSC has a considerable responsibility to ensure the competence of legal advice.

• In addition to championing the needs of the client, the LSC is also

committed to assisting and supporting organisations’ ability to provide high quality legal advice. The results from the many hundreds of peer reviews that have been and will be undertaken in the future provide a wealth of information relating directly to the advice given to clients. The LSC will summarise and prioritise this information and make it available to all organisations in the CLS/CDS.

In this way organisations will be able to undertake a self-assessment against the key areas identified as ‘in most need of attention or improvement’ and will recognise areas of good practice that can be further developed. A continuing cycle of identification of the most frequent problems found on complete case files, self-assessment by the organisation against the findings with appropriate corrective action, followed by further peer reviews and new assessments of ‘most frequent problems’, will be one of the most powerful mechanisms to assist all suppliers to improve the quality of their advice. Without doubt, this is the most exciting and beneficial impact that will result from the introduction of the peer review process as outlined in this paper. The final result of a peer review is a law category specific rating of the quality of advice and legal work provided by an individual supplier. The rating will be accepted by the LSC as a definitive assessment and will be utilised within the LSC’s contracting strategy, for example:


April 2005

4

• All organisations holding a LSC contract must provide a service to their clients that meets minimum standards as detailed in the contract. Peer review will be utilised by the LSC as determining if, from a quality of advice perspective, suppliers are meeting their contractual obligations.

• The Preferred Supplier initiative is designed to identify suppliers

providing higher levels of quality of advice and legal work (whilst also meeting other criteria). Peer review will act as a definitive assessment to determine if a supplier’s work exceeds the minimum standard set for the designation – Preferred Supplier. The actual standard has yet to be defined and will be published in the Preferred Supplier consultation paper later this year.

With the importance of peer review in the assessment of an organisation’s work and the consequences that may follow from this, the process detailed in this paper balances the need for a fair and accurate assessment against the cost of peer review. To this end the LSC has focussed on achieving, as far as possible, ‘right first time’. The more qualified, experienced, trained, competent and consistent a peer reviewer is, together with the management of the process by IALS, the more confidence all parties can have in the first peer review result. As an example, all peer reviewers are experienced supervisors whose own work has been peer reviewed and rated as Competence Plus (2) or better The paper provides full details of the selection, training and on-going verification of peer reviewers. However, despite our confidence that peer review is accurate and consistent, we recognise that a supplier may feel that they have reasonable grounds to dispute the rating, for example the peer reviewer may have misinterpreted certain information. The peer review process, incorporates therefore safeguard mechanisms to safeguard against these factors. The mechanisms are detailed in this paper. However, it is worthy to note there is a general ‘rule’ that where a peer review rating is likely to result in further action, another separate peer review (with different case files and a different peer reviewer) will be conducted (with the opportunity to submit representations in both cases). This may happen immediately for example when the initial peer review identifies a Failure in Performance (5) or at a later date where a supplier’s work is rated as Below Competence (4) and time is given for the supplier to effect corrective action. This also applies to suppliers wishing to be recognised as ‘preferred’. If the first rating is below the minimum level for preferred status, following receipt of successful development activity, another peer review would be conducted. The impact of the process, as detailed in this paper, should ensure that suppliers’ work is assessed fairly, accurately and within a reasonable time frame.


April 2005

5

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This paper sets out the full process of peer review conducted by the

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), as independent contractor. It begins with recruitment and selection of peer reviewers, and then explains the process of a peer review, reporting and feedback to suppliers, and the representation process.

1.2 The purpose of this consultation paper is to ensure the final

methodology for Independent Peer Review will enable it to be used nationally. It will become an integral part of the Legal Services Commission’s (LSC) supplier management strategy, as a direct measure of the quality of advice and legal work provided by a supplier. This paper does not provide information on the LSC’s wider Supplier Management and Contracting strategy. This can be found in other consultation papers.

1.3 The process described has been developed from an existing

methodology and built upon to reflect feedback from peer reviewers, suppliers and representative bodies such as the Law Society and LAPG etc. We believe the peer review process described represents the best method available to directly, accurately and fairly measure the quality of advice and legal work provided by suppliers.

1.4 We have set out a number of consultation questions for your views,

which will enable us to identify whether certain aspects of the process require further refinement or addition, and ensure that the Independent Peer Review process is clear and transparent. Please feel free to answer as many questions as you wish; some may not be relevant to you or your organisation.

1.5 The responses to this consultation paper, and subsequent discussions

with interested parties will help to shape the detail of the peer review process.

1.6 When responding to the consultation please state whether you are

responding as an individual, as a supplier or representing the views of an umbrella organisation. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation please make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable how the views of the members were assembled.

1.7 Copies of this consultation paper, are available from the LSC’s website

www.legalservices.gov.uk . 1.8 In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the LSC may

publish your name and contents of your response unless you provide sufficient reasons for asking us not to. Please ensure that your response is marked clearly if you wish your responses or your name to

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/


April 2005

6

be kept confidential. In any event, confidential responses may still be disclosed in a summarised or anonymous format, and will be included in any statistical summary of the comments received and views expressed.

1.9 The closing date for consultation is 25th June 2005. Please send your

responses, including the cover sheet, to:

Jennifer Will Supplier Development Group Legal Services Commission 85 Gray’s Inn Road London WC1X 8TX DX328 London 020 7759 0151 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


April 2005

7

2 INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW METHODOLOGY Definition of Peer Review 2.1 The Independent Peer Review utilised by the Legal Services

Commission (LSC) operates within a framework and methodology developed and managed by a research and operations team based at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS).

2.2 ‘Peer review’ in this context is a form of contract audit based on a review

of a sample of a supplier’s case files, undertaken by an experienced practitioner who is trained in the peer review framework.

2.3 The framework involves the assessment of files using a standard criteria

and ratings system to determine the quality of advice and legal work provided to clients in a particular category of work. Following consideration of the files using the criteria, an overall judgement on the quality of advice and legal work is made.

2.4 Peer reviews are category specific and are carried out by a practitioner

who is experienced and skilled in that area of law. Development of Methodology 2.5 The peer review methodology utilised by the LSC was initially developed

by researchers at IALS as part of research into the Civil Contracting Pilots, published in ‘Quality and Cost – Final Report on the Contracting of Civil, Non-Family Advice and Assistance Pilot’ (Moorhead, Sherr et al. 2001).1 The idea of peer review had received earlier attention in “Quality – The Legal Agenda”(Sherr et al 1993) at the beginning of franchising.

2.6 A central feature of the Quality and Cost research was the comparison,

and triangulation, of different methods for measuring the quality of professional service. Peer review was developed and used as a means of assessing aspects of quality of work under contracting, along with:

• Brief Case – a system for recording information about type of case and

case outcome • Model client visits (the lay assessment of service by model clients) • Outcome measures • Client satisfaction surveys

The research covered over 140,000 cases (focussing on 87,000 closed cases), and involved 143 contracted suppliers, both in private practice and in the not for profit sector.

1 This report is available from The Stationery Office (website: www.tso.co.uk)


April 2005

8

2.7 One of the conclusions of the research was that peer review represented the best mechanism available to the LSC to look directly at the quality of advice and legal work provided by a supplier. Through this and further pilot work, IALS continued the development of peer review as an assessment tool for use with legal aid suppliers. Peer review, as developed, is now used to assess the quality of advice and legal work of contracted suppliers.

2.8 The process of taking peer review into mainstream use has involved

further development since the Quality and Cost research. The peer review criteria have been refined, the recruitment process, peer review reporting, and the representations process have all been developed to reflect feedback from peer reviewers and suppliers. The LSC believe that as a result the peer review process described in this paper represents the best mechanism available for assessing the quality of legal advice and work provided by suppliers of legal aid.

Do you agree that the process of Independent Peer Review is independent from the LSC? If you disagree please provide reasons. (Question 1) Peer Review Criteria 2.9 The assessment of files for peer review is carried out using a standard

criteria (the Peer Review Criteria) and a rating system developed by the researchers in consultation with the peer reviewers and representatives of the Law Society (civil and crime criteria)2 and the Not for Profit sector (civil criteria only).

2.10 The Peer Review Criteria are designed to highlight the quality of:

• The information gained from the client and other sources, • The advice given based on that information, and • The steps taken following that advice.

2.11 There are two different sets of criteria: civil and crime. The civil criteria

are used for the peer review of civil categories of law, and the crime criteria are used for the peer review of criminal defence work.

2.12 The criteria for crime are specific to all areas of criminal law. There are

further legal work and generic criteria, applicable to all areas of civil law, in conjunction with category-specific guidance notes for peer reviewers.

2 The crime peer review criteria were developed by Professor Ed Cape of the University of the West of England, together with the peer reviewers, consultees and other members of the research team


April 2005

9

2.13 Following their assessment of the files using the criteria, the peer reviewer makes an overall judgement concerning the quality of advice and legal work provided by the supplier.

Civil Criteria 2.14 The civil criteria were developed as part of the Quality and Cost

research mentioned above, drawing on earlier work. The criteria were then further refined and adapted in consultation with peer reviewers and other specialist practitioners. Category-specific criteria were developed to be incorporated into notes for guidance to elaborate the use of the criteria. A copy of the civil criteria and associated guidance is located in Appendix 1.

Crime Criteria 2.15 The criteria developed for crime were informed by a number of sources:

• Investigative stage peer review criteria – During the first phase of the Public Defender Service (PDS) evaluation research, criteria were created for peer review of police station files. These were developed using a number of sources, including the transaction criteria of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the Standards of Performance that are used in the police station accreditation process administered jointly by the LSC and the Law Society.

• Current standards of good practice – The magistrates’ court duty

solicitor accreditation process utilises standards of performance relevant to the specific role of a duty solicitor. In addition, the Law Society publication ‘Criminal Defence: Good Practice in the Criminal Courts’ (Ede, R. and Edwards, A.; 2nd edn; 2002) sets out guidance on standards of good practice for criminal defence lawyers.

• The civil peer review criteria – The experience of using criteria in a

civil setting influenced the development of crime criteria, particularly in terms of formulating criteria that are generic (in the sense of being applicable to a wide variety of cases and case trajectories) and which focus on the processes involved in conducting cases.

2.16 Using the sources in 2.15, the crime criteria were drafted by research

solicitors (Ed Cape and Avrom Sherr), and amended and further developed during the training for the first crime peer reviewers. A copy of the crime criteria and associated guidance is located in Appendix 1.

Do you believe there are any additional criteria that may enhance the peer review assessment? (Question 2)


April 2005

10

Definitions of the Ratings 2.17 The criteria are marked on a sliding (in research terminology “Likert”)

scale (1–5), and, in some cases, with Yes/No. For each civil file peer reviewed, an overall assessment of quality is made with a 1–5 rating. For crime files, an overall rating of 1–5 is given for each stage of the case (Investigation Stage, Magistrates Court Stage and Crown Court Stage), followed by overall assessment of quality for each file.

2.18 Following the review of a sample of files for a supplier, an overall rating

(using the 1-5 rating) is given for the quality of legal advice and work, and the value for money assessment.3

2.19 The ratings are as follows:

• Excellence (1) • Competence Plus (2) • Threshold Competence (3) • Below Competence (4) • Failure in Performance (5)

2.20 The ratings’ definitions describe the work of the supplier as reviewed by

the peer reviewer over a number of files. Similar concepts are applicable to individual files, although the wording of the definitions aims more to describe a range of work.

2.21 The award of the ratings is made with consideration of the requirement

at Clause 3.2 of the General Contract4 Standard Terms, which states that:

“You must perform all Contract Work and exercise your Devolved Powers in a timely manner and with all reasonable skill, care and diligence. You must perform your obligations to record and report data accurately. Your claims must be true, accurate and reasonable.”

2.22 A rating of Below Competence (4) or Failure in Performance (5) is intended to indicate that the supplier is not meeting Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms. Ratings of Threshold Competence (3) and above are intended to indicate that the supplier is meeting or exceeding this requirement.

2.23 The definitions of the ratings are as follows:

3 For further information regarding the Value for Money assessment see 6.19 4 Where reference is made to the General Contract this includes the General Civil, General Civil (NfP) and General Criminal Contract).


April 2005

11

Excellence (1) 2.24 Peer review demonstrates that contract work has been conducted at a

standard that exceeds the requirements defined by Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms.

Indicators of Excellence in the standard of work include: • Clients’ instructions are fully and appropriately recorded. • Communication, advice and other work are tailored to each individual

client’s circumstances. • Clients are all advised correctly and in full. • All issues are progressed comprehensively, appropriately and

efficiently. • There is a demonstration of in-depth knowledge and appreciation of

the wider context. • There is excellent use of tactics and strategies, demonstrating skill

and expertise, in an attempt to ensure the best outcomes for clients. • The supplier adds value to their cases, taking a fully proactive

approach. • There are no areas for major improvement.

Competence Plus (2) 2.25 Peer review demonstrates that contract work has been conducted at a

standard that more than satisfies the requirements defined by Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms. Indicators of Competence Plus in the standard of work include: • Clients’ instructions are appropriately recorded. • Advice and work is tailored to individual client’s circumstances. • Clients are advised correctly and in full. • Issues are progressed comprehensively, appropriately and efficiently. • Tactics and strategies are employed to achieve the best outcomes for

clients. • The supplier adds value to cases and takes a proactive approach.

Threshold Competence (3) 2.26 Peer review demonstrates that contract work has been conducted at the

standard clients are reasonably entitled to expect from a solicitor as defined by Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms.

Indicators of Threshold Competence in the standard of work include:

• Clients’ instructions are appropriately recorded. • There is adequate but limited communication with the client.


April 2005

12

• The advice and work is adequate although it may not always be extensive, and may not deal with other linked issues other than the presenting issue.

• There may be areas that the supplier will need to address in order to progress towards Competence Plus (2) or Excellence (1).

Below Competence (4) 2.27 Peer review demonstrates that contract work has been conducted below

the standard which clients are reasonably entitled to expect from a solicitor as defined by Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms.

Indicators of Below Competence in the standard of work include: • Information is not being recorded or reported accurately. • Communication with the client is of poor quality. • The advice and other work is inadequate. • Some cases are not being conducted with reasonable skill, care and

diligence. • The timeliness of the communication, the advice or other work is

inadequate. • There are lapses below the required standard.

Failure in Performance (5) 2.28 Peer review demonstrates that contract work has been conducted well

below the standard which clients are reasonably entitled to expect from a solicitor as defined by Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms. There has been at least one major or complete failure to conduct work to this standard.

Indicators of Failure in Performance in the standard of work include: • Information is not being recorded or reported accurately. • Communication with clients is often of a poor quality. • Cases in general are not being conducted with reasonable skill, care

and diligence. • The timeliness of the communication, the advice or work is often

inadequate. • There is a detrimental service to clients, or there is no meaningful

service at all, or there is a service that leads to potential prejudice for the client.

Additional notes 2.29 The matters set out in the ratings definitions above are examples of the

standard of work they describe. Peer reviewers may take other matters into account in order to determine the quality of advice and work evidenced by the peer review. For example supervision and file review (required as part of the SQM) are designed to prevent the provision of


April 2005

13

poor quality of advice and legal work, as evidenced by a rating of Below Competence (4) or Failure in Performance (5). The award of a rating of Below Competence (4) and Failure in Performance (5) suggest that supervision processes are not in effective operation.

2.30 The weight given to the bullet points and any other factors will vary from

case to case. 2.31 Ratings at Threshold Competence (3) and above constitute a ‘pass’ at

peer review. These ratings indicate that a supplier is meeting or exceeding the requirements of Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms. Corrective action may still be needed in some cases where the work of a supplier has been rated at Threshold Competence (3). Those falling below ratings 1–3 are in breach of this clause.

Making a Judgement on Quality 2.32 Following the assessment of a number of individual files (usually a

sample of 15), the peer reviewer prepares a quality assessment report. This report details all the key findings extracted from the individual files, with particular emphasis on trends and patterns identified across the sample. The peer reviewer will consider all the findings and all pertinent information, as evidenced from all the files in the sample and will determine an overall supplier rating, which is recorded on the final report.

2.33 The peer reviewer will not automatically arrive at the final rating simply

by averaging the scores on the individual files, although in most instances the final rating is likely to be the equivalent of the average of the scores on those individual files. The essence of the peer review process is that reviewers use their skill, experience and training to inform the overall rating of the supplier from the trends and patterns they see on the individual files.

2.34 The peer reviewer does not employ any specific formula to arrive at the

overall rating. The fundamental nature of peer review is that it is the judgement of an experienced practitioner. The peer review methodology and framework enables peer reviewers to make a judgement on how they think the work of a supplier is managed, supervised and ultimately produced as a result of seeing the work on the individual files. Their function is to assess the overall quality of work in the organisation from the sample of files. For example, no-one would wish any client to receive advice or legal work which is Below Competence (4) or a Failure in Performance (5). Peer reviewers’ overall ratings may be heavily influenced by the extent and the causes of poorer work.

Are the ratings sufficient to differentiate between supplier performance? (Question 3)


April 2005

14

3 THE PEER REVIEWERS 3.1 After the initial application process (which includes initial shortlisting)

peer reviewers are carefully selected, trained and monitored by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) as an ongoing part of Independent Peer Review. A Peer Review Panel has been established in nine categories of law.5 Additional panels are also being developed. Ongoing recruitment is required to maintain these panels. Peer reviewers are recruited on a category-specific basis.

3.2 Appointment to the panel is through an open selection process, which

includes advertisements in public legal journals. Applicants are only accepted onto the panel if they successfully meet all the requirements of the recruitment and training.

3.3 There may be occasions where individuals are invited to apply for the

position of peer reviewer, for example in smaller categories of law where, following an open recruitment process positions are still vacant.

3.4 The practitioners on the peer review panels are drawn from a range of

suppliers located across England and Wales. In order to prevent the panel being weighted towards one supplier, it has been decided to restrict selection from suppliers to one peer reviewer in each category of law. An organisation may, however, have peer reviewers in different categories of law.

Recruitment 3.5 Standard application criteria are used during the shortlisting phase of the

recruitment process. Alongside extensive experience and specialisation through, for example, membership of Law Society accreditation scheme(s), applicants must demonstrate the following as a minimum:

• Five years’ Post Qualification Experience (PQE) or equivalent in the

category(ies) of law. • Three years’ supervisory experience in the category(ies) of law. • Three years’ experience of Legal Services Commission (LSC)

Specialist Quality Mark (SQM)/contract work. 3.6 Applicants must currently be working under an LSC contract in a fee

earner/caseworker and supervisory capacity.6 Applicants must conduct the full range of work in the category of law in which they apply (as defined by the appropriate SQM Supervisor Self Declaration Form). Full

5 Crime, Family, Immigration, Housing, Welfare Benefits, Debt, Employment, Mental Health and Community Care. 5 If a peer reviewer stops conducting publicly funded work they can continue as a peer reviewer for no longer than six months.


April 2005

15

details of the essential and preferred peer reviewer requirements are located in Appendix 2. Those short listed progress to the interview stage.

3.7 Shortlisted applicants are interviewed and undertake a written exercise.

In the written exercise, candidates are asked to assess a category-specific case file using the peer review criteria. The purpose of the interview is to assess applicants’ experience, their motivation to become a peer reviewer, their understanding or consideration of concepts of competence, and their open-mindedness and independence. The purpose of the assessment is to judge how well the applicant can carry out the review of the file.

3.8 The performance of candidates during the interview and the written

exercise determines whether or not they can progress to the next stage of the recruitment – peer review assessment.

3.9 Candidates that have successfully passed the interview and assessment

undergo a category-specific peer review of their work. The review is conducted by an existing member of the peer review panel following the standard process. Candidates are only accepted onto the panel if their work is rated at a level of Competence Plus (2) or above.

3.10 References are sought for all applicants who are invited to the training.

References must include a current/recent employer (or partner in the firm) and another senior referee. Invitations to the training are only offered subject to the receipt of satisfactory references. The names of potential peer reviewers and their current or most recent supplier are circulated to the Law Society, relevant LSC regional account managers and investigations teams, to ensure that there are no particular issues with a candidate or their firm which might suggest that they would be inimical to peer review or assisting in the approach of peer review.

Are the recruitment criteria set at the appropriate level? (Question 4) Training 3.11 All applicants who have successfully passed the interview and written

assessment must attend the training. At the training the peer review process and its application are explained, and the applicants are trained on using the criteria, the ratings and feedback reports. Following this they undertake the assessment of example files in groups and individually. A number of existing peer reviewers assist in the training in a mentoring capacity. They provide guidance to the trainees regarding the assessment of files and the application of the criteria, utilising the knowledge and experience they have gained as a result of the reviews they have already conducted. The existing Peer Reviewers may also provide feedback that can be incorporated into the evaluation by IALS of trainees’ readiness to conduct reviews.


April 2005

16

3.12 The training also includes input from specialist practitioners from both

private practice and the voluntary sectors who are not peer reviewers, acting as consultees. Officials of Advice Services Alliance and the Law Society are also invited to attend, where appropriate.

3.13 The trainees are introduced to the peer review process and how it has

been developed. The criteria and associated guidance are discussed and explained in length. Where necessary, at the request of the new peer reviewers, notes for the interpretation of certain criteria are drafted for addition to the category-specific guidance notes that accompany the criteria.

3.14 Following the in-depth discussion of the criteria and how they should be

applied, trainees are split into small groups for the assessment of example case files. In each group, everyone individually assesses the same files using the criteria. Once they have completed the review, group members discuss the file, the ratings they have given, and the reasoning behind the ratings, and then reach agreement on the rating the file should be given. This exercise is then repeated on other sets of example files. After the exercise has been conducted all the trainees reconvene to discuss how they have found the application of the criteria and clarify any areas of uncertainty together with existing peer reviewers.

3.15 Following completion of the example case files, the peer reviewers are

trained to use the database software utilised during the reviews. They are provided with detailed guidance notes to accompany the training. Training versions of the database are forwarded to peer reviewers on completion of the training so that they can practise using the system before their first reviews.

3.16 Trainees also receive guidance on writing the Peer Review Report.

Trainees are provided with examples of reports to inform them of their obligations in this area. The report is an important part of any review as it pulls together the quality findings on the case files, provides an overall assessment of the quality of advice provided, and forms the basis of the feedback given to suppliers following their review. Further detail about the content of the report is found in Section 6.

Assessment – Condensed Peer Review 3.17 Following completion of the above components, trainees will be required

to conduct a mini peer review in order to assess whether they will be effective peer reviewers and successfully apply the training that they have received.


April 2005

17

3.18 All trainees will be given copies of six standard files from one supplier. These are example files that have previously been assessed and rated. Trainees are expected to assess the files using the criteria, complete a summary report and judge the overall rating for the supplier.

3.19 The results of the assessment will be compared to the model response.

IALS will examine any deviation from the model and identify what course of action needs to be taken as a result.

3.20 If an applicant’s assessment is in agreement with the model review, they

will be accepted onto the peer review panel. 3.21 If the assessment varies slightly from the model answer, IALS will

determine the most appropriate course of action and discuss the variance with the trainee. If, following this, IALS is satisfied that the applicant is competent to assess, they will be accepted onto the panel.

3.22 Where an assessment varies significantly from the model, the applicant

will either be excluded from the panel or asked to undergo the training again.

Are there any additional training and assessment mechanisms we should consider? (Question 5) Verifying Competency 3.23 An assessment is carried out on the first two peer reviews conducted by

a new reviewer in order to verify the competency of the review. These take the form of a crosscheck peer review by an established member of the peer review panel to ensure that the correct process is being followed, and the criteria are being appropriately applied.

3.24 If there is inconsistency between the outcomes of the review of the new

peer reviewer and that of the established member of the peer review panel the differences are investigated and resolved. In circumstances where the outcomes differ, further crosscheck peer reviews are conducted and, if necessary, the peer reviewers may be asked to undergo further training.

3.25 If, following remedial action, the new peer reviewer’s work continues to

show inconsistency from that of their colleagues, they may be removed from the peer review panel.

3.26 Where a peer review panel has been established in a new category of

law, the first two reviews that each new reviewer conducts will also be reviewed by another new reviewer. The decisions made will be monitored closely. Any difference in the ratings will be investigated, and


April 2005

18

if necessary, a further peer review will be conducted. The ongoing performance of each new reviewer will be monitored.

Consistency 3.27 Peer reviewers provide independent judgements based on their own

experience and influenced by their training. They are selected and trained to be open-minded towards different practice approaches, provided that these conform to appropriate standards of competence.7 Observer reliability is a well-recognised problem in relation to written work generally, and professional work in particular, and earlier work both in ‘Quality and Cost’8 and ‘Lawyers – The Quality Agenda’9 showed a tendency towards difference in the assessments of lawyer peers. Lawyers are trained in practice contexts, which are highly individualised, and there have been, until this approach of peer review was initiated, few standardised practice routines. The Legal Practice Course (LPC), since its inception in 1990, tends towards an element of standardisation for those who have been qualified through that medium. However, there are many practitioners who qualified earlier, and there is some variance between LPC providers. In any event, most practice skills and routines are learned on the job, and are therefore affected by the aforementioned individualisation. Whilst it is not surprising that, as a result, there are some differences in view between new peer reviewers, a series of activities are undertaken to mitigate this (especially during peer review training). Key to addressing the issue is:

• The system of training employed, • The structure by which a reviewer makes their judgement, and • The monitoring of performance over time.

3.28 Training System – Coupled with the open-mindedness sought when

peer review applicants are interviewed, the system of training is aimed at bringing about consistency in the assessments of the peer reviewers. They work initially with other existing peer reviewers in assessing files and discussing decisions, and slowly move on to assess files by themselves and then compare results on the same training files.

3.29 Review Structure – Once a peer reviewer begins to conduct their own

reviews, they are assessing suppliers on the basis of a random stratified sample of work. In ‘Quality and Cost’, and in research work since, it has been shown that the grading of overall reports of suppliers are more strongly consistent than peer review assessments of individual files.

7 The collective view of the Peer Reviewers, informed by their knowledge as experienced supervisors, panel membership, existing protocols and case law, facilitated by IALS. 8 See paragraph 2.5 9 ‘Lawyers – The Quality Agenda’, Volume One, ‘Assessing and Developing Competence and Quality in Legal Aid –The Report of the Birmingham Franchising Pilot’ (Sherr, A.H. with Paterson, A. and Moorhead, R.; HMSO; London; 1994)


April 2005

19

Overview assessments of firms show greater observer reliability and it is the overviews that are relied upon for decisions.

3.30 Performance Monitoring – Early reviews of new peer reviewers are

monitored carefully, and their performance is compared over time with that of other peer reviewers. Monitoring may identify general training needs that can be addressed at future training sessions, or identify areas for development for an individual reviewer that can be resolved by closer monitoring or direct discussions. Further training is conducted after approximately six months, and is also aimed at ensuring consistency among peer reviewers once they have conducted a number of reviews. If, following training, a peer reviewer’s work shows inconsistency from that of their colleagues, consideration may be given to removing them from the peer review panel, although retraining/corrective action may also be considered.

3.31 Peer reviewer consistency is monitored throughout the duration of their

contract. Quarterly reports detailing the ratings awarded by each peer reviewer will be sent to IALS for monitoring. If following analysis, concerns are raised regarding a peer reviewer’s assessments cross check peer reviews, as described in paragraph 3.23, will be conducted on the next peer reviews they conduct. If there is inconsistency between the outcomes of the review the differences will be investigated and resolved. In circumstances where the outcomes differ, the peer reviewers may be asked to undergo further training.

3.32 If, following remedial action, the peer reviewer’s work continues to show

inconsistency from that of their colleagues, they may be removed from the peer review panel.

3.33 Alongside this monitoring random cross check peer reviews will be

conducted on an ongoing basis, any variance will be investigated 3.34 Consistency is also maintained through further training exercises, the

assessment of model files and additional guidance notes. 3.35 A peer review of the peer reviewers will be conducted every three years

to ensure that the appropriate level of competency is maintained. Do you agree with the process for ensuring the consistency of peer reviewers? (Question 6) Contracts 3.36 All peer reviewers are contracted with the LSC to carry out peer reviews

under the guidance and monitoring of IALS. The contract is between the peer reviewers and the LSC, rather than IALS, for reasons of confidentiality and data protection with regard to legal aid files.


April 2005

20

3.37 This contractual arrangement requires that peer reviewers comply with

the instruction, training and guidance given by IALS; the LSC’s role in the peer review process is an administrative one.

3.38 The contract covers all areas of the peer reviewers’ roles and

responsibilities and the LSC’s obligations to them. 3.39 In addition to the general obligations of confidentiality and obligations to

treat personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1988, the LSC has imposed non-disclosure obligations identical to those to which the LSC itself is bound (s38 Legal Aid Act 1988 and s20 Access to Justice Act 1999). This enables all peer reviewers to look at any legal aid files.

3.40 All peer reviewers are contracted to conduct a minimum of 20 days peer

review work per year (including training/updates) in order to maintain consistency. If it becomes evident that a peer reviewer is not available/willing to conduct this volume of reviews, they may not be able to continue on the panel.

3.41 In addition to the usual rights of termination on a ‘without cause’ basis,

for material breach, insolvency and other specified events, a peer reviewer’s contract can be terminated under the following circumstances:

• Where a peer reviewer is in breach of their confidentiality or conflict of

interest obligations. • Where the peer reviewer’s own casework has been assessed by peer

review and found not to meet the standard of competence required to be a peer reviewer.

• Where the peer reviewer’s circumstances change and they are no longer practising and supervising in the area of law for which they have been appointed to the peer review panel, and where their employment circumstances change such that they give rise to reasonable concerns as to their ability to carry out peer reviews with the necessary independence and objectivity required.

3.42 Peer reviewers are asked annually to submit an update concerning their

circumstances (i.e. their place of work, category of law they are practicing in, panel membership etc). Random checks are also conducted by the LSC to ensure that the information that is held is correct. For example membership of Law Society Panels is checked.

Updates/Training 3.43 In conjunction with the ongoing monitoring of peer review results by

IALS for consistency purposes, peer reviewers are required to undertake


April 2005

21

updates/further training sessions. During these sessions the peer reviewers revisit the criteria, discuss any issues/findings and conduct further assessments of example files. The updates/training take place normally every six months.

Equal opportunities monitoring 3.44 The ethnic origin, age, gender and disability of all peer review applicants

has been compared to that of legal aid fee earners in general, from data compiled in the ‘Fourth Annual Equal Opportunities Report – August 2004’ produced by the Legal Services Research Centre. It also compares these with the responses of those of the people ultimately recruited as peer reviewers.10

3.45 The key findings were as follows:

• Applicants for the position of Independent Peer Reviewer were slightly more ethnically diverse than the LSC’s supplier base but recruited peer reviewers were considerably more ethnically diverse than the supplier base (11%).

• Proportionally, there were considerably more female peer reviewers

than male, compared with fee earners amongst the supplier base.

• 3% of firms amongst the LSC’s suppliers reported one or more long-term ill or disabled solicitor fee earner working in the firm. 1% of applicants considered themselves to have a disability and 2% of recruited peer reviewers considered themselves to have a disability.

• There was a variance (though minimal) between the number of

applicants and peer reviewers in the 30–39, 40–49 and 50–59 age groups compared with the supplier base. This difference could be attributed to the differing age groupings, but is more likely to be to due to the number of years’ experience that peer reviewers are expected to have before applying for the role.

• There were a significantly greater number of solicitors amongst the

supplier base aged 29 or below than amongst peer reviewers, but this can be attributed to the fact that peer reviewers need at least five years’ post-qualification experience in order to be considered for the position.

3.46 A full Equal Opportunities Impact Assessment is detailed in Section 9.

10 Data was used from forms returned in all peer review recruitment rounds from June 2002 to February 2004. 564 forms were sent to applicants and 418 (74.1%) responses were recorded. Of 80 peer reviewers, 51 (63.8%) responses were recorded


April 2005

22

4 THE USES OF PEER REVIEW 4.1 Peer Review will be one of the audit tools used by the Legal Services

Commission (LSC) to monitor supplier performance. 4.2 Peer review can also be used for specific purposes detailed below:

• Targeted assessments • Access reasons • Random Assessments • Gateway assessments

4.3 A key part of the methodology is that peer reviewers are not informed of

the reason for the review, furthermore another key feature is the importance of ensuring that peer reviewers are exposed to a range of quality of supplier work.

Targeted Assessments 4.4 When there are serious concerns about the quality of a supplier’s work,

peer review is used to identify any fundamental breach of Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms.11

Access Reasons 4.5 When a supplier who operates in a high priority area of need cannot

meet the supervisors’ casework requirements, peer review is used as an assessment of ‘Supervisors’ Legal Competence’ (D3.2 in the Specialist Quality Mark (SQM)).

Random Assessments 4.6 Random samples of suppliers are also selected for peer review to:

• Support the development of other auditing tools and screening data, and

• Assess the quality across the supplier base. This is run on a continuing basis across all the main categories of law.

4.7 This exposes peer reviewers to a range of quality of supplier work and

also provides a controlled sample against which the LSC can gauge normal performance – a National Benchmark of quality.

11 Clause 3.2 states “You must perform all Contract Work and exercise your Devolved Powers in a timely manner and with all reasonable skill, care and diligence. You must perform your obligations to record and report data accurately. Your claims must be true, accurate and reasonable.”


April 2005

23

Gateway Assessments 4.8 Suppliers applying for some types of contract or participation in some

schemes, projects and pilots (for example Preferred Supplier and competitive tendering schemes) may have to demonstrate a defined level of legal competence. Peer review may be used as part of the assessment of legal competence at the application stage and/or during the contract/scheme or project lifetime.


April 2005

24

5 PEER REVIEW LOGISTICS The Selection of Suppliers for Peer Review 5.1 Although the Legal Services Commission (LSC) retain the right to peer

review a supplier at any time, and without specifying a reason, there are a number of different routes by which a supplier will commonly be selected for peer review. If peer review is used as a gateway assessment, or for access reasons, suppliers will either have put themselves forward for review or have been identified by their regional office. Suppliers may also be selected for peer review as one of the LSC’s audit tools to assess supplier performance. Suppliers are informed of the reason for the review. Peer reviewers are not informed of the reasons for review.

Random Reviews – National Benchmark 5.2 A stratified random sample of suppliers is taken to form the National

Benchmark in each category of law. The sample is stratified according to the number of suppliers in any given region holding a contract in the identified category of law.

5.3 The size of the National Benchmark is set (on average 50 suppliers in

any one category). The number of contract holders (in the given category of law) in each region is identified and expressed as a percentage of the national number of contracts in that area of law. This percentage is then applied to the size of the benchmark to determine how many firms/organisations need to be reviewed in any one region to provide a representative profile of the work being conducted nationally. For example if the Bristol region has 10% of all Housing contracts in England and Wales, and the benchmark will be made up of 50 suppliers, the number of firms/organisations needed for the Benchmark in Bristol would be five for the sample to be representative.

5.4 Once the number of firms per region has been identified, a list of all

category-specific contract holders is randomised and the organisations selected (see Appendix 3).

5.5 There are certain circumstances under which it is not possible to review

a supplier that has been randomly selected for the National Benchmark; these are: • The supplier no longer holds a contract in that category of law. • The supplier has not reported more than ten case files in that area of

law in the last 12 months. 5.6 In these circumstances, the next supplier in the randomised list will

normally be selected. If a supplier selected for the National


April 2005

25

Benchmarking exercise has already been reviewed within the last three years, and has been rated at a level of Threshold Competence (3) or above, their result will be included in the benchmark (no further review is required). A peer review result of Threshold Competence (3) or above is normally valid for three years from the date of review, provided that there are no significant changes to personnel (especially the category supervisor), or the supplier’s quality profile does not indicate a possible reduction in performance.

File Sampling 5.7 A stratified random sample of 20 files are selected per category of law

for the purpose of peer review. The sample is stratified based on the proportion of work a supplier reports in each matter type (for civil cases) or claim code (crime cases). For crime and family file samples the stratification varies from this approach, the stratification in these circumstances is detailed in paragraphs 5.18 and 5.19 - 5.20 respectively).

5.8 The LSC has commissioned research to confirm the appropriate sample

size. The research specifically concentrates on the number of files that require review in any peer review sample to ensure confidence that the overall rating is an accurate reflection of the suppliers work.

5.9 The findings support the current process of reviewing up to 15 files as

this demonstrates a confidence level of 95% that the result is accurate. The full findings of the research will be published once available.

5.10 Although the research may indicate that we can review a smaller

sample, our current intention is to review a minimum of 15 files from the sample. 20 files are initially requested as there may be occasions when a file is not suitable for review, the reason for which may not be apparent until the peer reviewer has had sight of the file, for example a file where there has been a change in solicitor prior to completion of any particular stage.

File Selection 5.11 Using the computerised systems for reporting criminal and civil cases

(SPOCC and SPAN respectively), and the CIS system for certificated cases,12 the number of cases within different sub-subject categories completed by a supplier in a specific period is identified.13 For example the system can identify if in Housing law there are 25% of cases in the defending possession category, 50% of cases dealing with homelessness and 25% housing disrepair. A random sample of those

12 SPOCC = Scrutiny and payment of criminal contracts SPAN = Supporting the prioritisation of advice, assistance and representation against need 13 Files are selected from cases closed within the last year


April 2005

26

cases, stratified in accordance with the mix identified by SPOCC or SPAN, is selected for review.

5.12 The files for review are selected by a randomisation tool, which has

been developed in Microsoft Access. All the files selected will normally have been closed within the last 12 months.

5.13 Currently all peer reviews are conducted at an office level (i.e. by

Supplier Account Number). It is likely that this will remain the process in operation. However a more streamlined approach for larger suppliers may be developed in the future.

5.14 Suppliers are not allowed to substitute files on the file list. If a file is

unavailable (for example it is at the costs draftsman) or for some reason it has become live, a replacement file or files is selected using the randomisation tool. The LSC reserves the right to request the file again at a later date if it is required.

5.15 If a supplier is unable to locate three or more files as part of the sample

selected for peer review, a new file sample may be selected. This is to ensure that the peer review sample remains accurately random. If the same situation arises on the second sample, action may be taken, for example the issue of a rectification notice, or the situation may be referred to the LSC Contract Lawyers Team for further investigation.

5.16 Suppliers are also asked to submit any files linked to those requested on

the file list. Where a supplier has reported less than 20 cases in any one year, all of those files would be requested and the review would be conducted as normal.

5.17 In order to maintain the integrity of the randomisation of the file sample

peer reviewers must review files from the top of the file list down. Crime File Samples 5.18 The file sample for crime peer review is stratified in the following way.

Out of the sample of 20 files selected for review there will be: • Five crown court files (of which the peer reviewer will assess at least

three during the course of any review). • A maximum of five police-station-only files. • Five Not Guilty pleas. • Five Non Standard Fees.

Do you agree that the stratification of the crime file sample is appropriate? (Question 7)


April 2005

27

Family File Samples 5.19 A special situation with regard to file sampling exists for Family law due

to the scope and complexity of the category. Due to significant differences between Domestic Violence, Divorce, Child Abduction Cases and Children Act cases, it is particularly important to ensure competency in these areas. As a result there must be a sufficient volume of files selected in these areas (at least five, where available). Where necessary, this approach may be extended to other categories of law.

5.20 Normally no more than five files in any family sample will comprise of

less than two hours work. Do you agree that the stratification of the family file sample is appropriate? (Question 8) File Requests 5.21 The LSC has the right to request files for peer review under Clause 3.8

of the General Contract Standard Terms.14 The Contract requires that case files for any assessment should be provided without any unreasonable delay, and in any event within 14 days – see Clause 3.9 of the Contract Standard Terms.15Failure to submit files may lead to the issue of a rectification notice.

5.22 The LSC has rights, under Regulations 3 & 4 of the Legal Services

(Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2000 (as amended), to inspect legal aid files. On confidentiality of information accessed by the LSC, all staff are bound by the non-disclosure restrictions in the Legal Aid Act 1988 and Access to Justice Act 1999. Failure to comply is a criminal offence.

5.23 All peer reviewers have signed contracts. In addition to the general

obligations of confidentiality, these contracts impose non-disclosure obligations identical to those that the LSC staff themselves are bound by under the above legislation. These contracts include provisions governing conflicts of interest and protection of personal data. Supported by the LSC’s own contract management procedures, these protect and

14 Clause 3.8 of the Contract Standard Terms states that “You must make available to our representatives such information, assistance and facilities (including, without limitation, photocopying and interview facilities), and such documents or parts of documents, including case files and file records of any Clients or Former Clients, as we may require.” 15 Clause 3.9 of the Contract Standard Terms states that: “You must comply with Clause 3.8: a) as quickly and as reasonably practicable (and, in any event, within 24 hours or such longer period as we may agree with you) if an Official Investigation is being conducted; b) without reasonable delay (and in any event within 14 days) on such other occasions as we may require for the purposes of an Assessment; c) within such period as we may specify (being not less than 14 days) on such other occasions as we may require for the purposes set out in this Contract.”


April 2005

28

control the use of information disclosed to peer reviewers as part of the peer review process.

5.24 The LSC’s prime motive in requesting and assessing files is to ensure

public funds are used to procure quality legal services. The legal profession also recognises that peer review is currently one of the most accurate processes for assessing the quality of work.

Conflict of Interest 5.25 Checks are carried out with suppliers and reviewers that there are no

conflicts of interest before a specific peer reviewer is allocated for an assessment.

5.26 Conflicts, for the purpose of peer review, concern situations where there

has been the opportunity for the peer reviewer to form a view about a supplier’s level of competence or to have their view of a supplier affected or biased in some way. For example circumstances where the peer reviewer:

• Has a partner, or a member of their immediate family, or close friend,

that works in a firm/organisation that is scheduled for review. • Has previously worked for the supplier. • Has recently acted against the supplier. • Has had dealings with the firm, for example as an agent, acting for a

co-accused, or acting for a private prosecutor. • Has taken over a matter from the supplier.

5.27 Conflict checks also consider whether the organisations being reviewed

are in direct competition with the peer reviewers themselves. A peer reviewer will not review any firm within their geographic region unless both the supplier and the reviewer consent. It is a peer reviewer’s duty to ensure that any possible conflicts of interest are identified at an early stage and reported to the LSC as soon as they arise.

5.28 The supplier is sent a list of all peer reviewers and the supplier that they

are associated with, and a conflict-check pro forma, on which they are asked to record any relevant conflicts.

Are the criteria sufficient to identify all potential conflicts of interest? (Question 9) Location of Reviews 5.29 All reviews take place on LSC premises; files are not sent to reviewers’

homes or places of work. The supplier is informed of the LSC office to which they should submit their files when they receive their file request letter.


April 2005

29

6 THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS 6.1 The peer review process is as follows:

• Initial peer review. • Second peer review, only scheduled where a peer review rating of 4

(Below Competence) or 5 (Failure in Performance) is returned (please see 6.38 – Peer Review Process Flow Chart).

6.2 Suppliers have the right to make representations where the peer review

rating is Threshold Competence (3) or below. In these circumstances the peer review result will only be confirmed following the completion of the representations phase. If a supplier does not pursue the representations phase, the result will be confirmed within a stipulated timescale (see paragraphs 6.25 – 6.33).

6.3 The Legal Services Commission (LSC) reserves the right to copy (and

store) all files submitted for review by the supplier. 6.4 The original files submitted for peer review are deemed a complete

record of each case. No additional case documentation will be considered post review.

6.5 Where, during the course of a peer review, a peer reviewer identifies any

adverse issues relating to the conduct of a solicitor, it may be reported through the appropriate channels.

Initial Peer Review 6.6 Suppliers receive a category-specific peer review on a stratified random

sample of their files. For each review it takes approximately one day to assess the necessary files, and another half day to complete the Peer Review Report (see Section 6.9).

6.7 Peer reviewers are provided with a file list that corresponds to the files

requested for review. The peer reviewer must work from the top of the list down to maintain the integrity of the randomisation. If a file is not reviewed the reason for this must be noted.

6.8 Each file is assessed against the standard criteria and ratings scale,

copies of which are in Appendix 1. The criteria provide a framework against which the peer reviewer evaluates the quality of the information gained from the client and other sources, the advice given based on that information, and the steps taken following that advice.

Peer Review Report 6.9 Following consideration of the files against the standard criteria, the peer

reviewer produces a peer review report, which details the findings of the


April 2005

30

assessment. This is the main document that is sent to a supplier following a peer review of their work. All peer review paperwork, especially the report, will potentially support decisions relating to the status or termination of contracts. The report is detailed and contains appropriate examples from the files to support and substantiate the rating given.

6.10 The report has eight main sub-headings as follows:

• The review. • Positive areas. • Areas for development/major areas of concern • Other areas of concern • Further comments • Suggested areas for corrective action • Overall value for money score • Overall quality of work score A copy of the ‘Peer Review Report’ template and an example report are contained in Appendix 4.

6.11 The report described the review that was undertaken. It reports the subject category reviewed, when and where the review took place, the name of the supplier reviewed, the time-span of the review and the files that were considered in the review. The file name, Unique File Number (UFN) and any sub-classification of each file should be given. For example:

“This review of a sample of John Smith & Co.’s work in Crime was carried out at the Llaregyb Regional Office of the Legal Services Commission on 1st March 2005 from 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Work on the report continued on 3rd March from 2.30 to 4.00 p.m. The following files were reviewed: AB – UFN0123456 Police Station and Magistrates Court AC – UFN0123457 Police Station only BD – UFN0123458 Police Station, Magistrates Court and Crown Court XZ – UFN0123459 This file was not considered as it involved work from another firm and was allied to a separate file which was not present for review etc.

This information clarifies to all concerned what files have been considered and the time taken over the review.

6.12 Positive areas are examples of good practice or good performance.

Where a sample of work has been rated as Excellence (1), Competence Plus (2) or Threshold Competence (3), the examples will demonstrate


April 2005

31

that the work reaches the level of performance required under the contract (or better).

6.13 A peer review that rates the level of performance as Excellence (1) or

Competence Plus (2) will not have any major areas of concern, and therefore any issues on the files are more likely to be noted in the report as ‘areas for development’.

6.14 Major areas of concern (the equivalent to critical quality concerns in the

Specialist Quality Mark (SQM)) are concerns that most influence the overall rating. These are most likely to be where the quality of advice, the competence of the fee earner or the level of client care given has produced an adverse impact on the client or could have been prejudicial to the client or someone else. The following are examples of possible major areas of concern:

• Knowledge of the law and procedures – Serious prejudice may

result from lack of knowledge or proper understanding of the law. The files should show a good knowledge of the law and an ability to manage the law. Good knowledge of the law should include not only knowledge of what the law is, but also the knowledge of procedures that need to be followed. If there is a defect in either, then that could be deemed likely to cause a serious prejudice to the client.

• Advice – The advice should always be clear and concise, and easily

understandable by the client. It is likely to be serious if the advice is couched in terms that the client is unable to understand, because the client will not be able to make a reasoned judgement either on the manner in which the case is being conducted or on decisions that the client needs to make for the case to proceed. Whilst, in reality, a solicitor progresses the case with their own judgement, the client should be aware of the progress of the case and all information appropriate to the client. For these reasons, it could be a serious failing if the advice given is wrong and leads to prejudice or is not understandable to a client who may enter into an unwanted situation.

• Lack of advice – Lack of advice when needed or requested, for

example a firm not attending at police stations to give advice when it should, or a client being misled with regard to either the merits of their case or the course that the case is taking, may be as serious an issue as giving bad advice.

• The mentally ill and vulnerable – Mentally ill and vulnerable clients

generally need specific consideration. One would expect failings with regard to mentally ill or vulnerable defendants to be a major area of concern. Failure to attend to them or to respond to their specific needs should always be considered to be serious.


April 2005

32

• Missing court appearances – If the client has been prejudiced at all or if a conviction or sentence occurred in their absence, this would be serious.

• Conflicts of interest – It would be a major concern if a supplier

acted in circumstances that would constitute a conflict of interest within the meaning of the Law Society’s Code of Conduct. This would be so even if to act may be to the benefit of the client whose file is for review.

• Cost issues – Cost is not an integral part of the peer review system,

but one that can properly be taken into account. An issue on cost may or may not be a major area of concern. It would be serious if the client’s own legitimate interests were subjugated to the question of the firm’s fees. Where it is the case that the provider should just not have run up particular fees it would be a less serious issue.

6.15 Other areas of concern (the equivalent of general quality concerns and

observations in the SQM) are those that do not have an immediate impact on the client and do not have a major impact on the overall rating. Examples include:

• The file is not in good order. • Not following standard procedure and poor file management.16 • Not performing administrative functions as far as the file is

concerned, which do not prejudice the client. • Inappropriate language within the course of the file, although this may

become serious if it has the effect of misleading the client. 6.16 The ‘Further Comments’ section will be used for comments that do not

warrant a mention in the earlier sections but which are matters the peer reviewer wishes to draw to the attention of the supplier. These might include matters such as:

• Standard letters could have been used to inform clients when an

application for public funding has been sent to the LSC. • The supplier would benefit from undertaking regular checks to ensure

that all legal help forms are fully completed. 6.17 The aim of the section regarding corrective action is to inform the

supplier where there have been instances of poor action, inaction or incorrect or incomplete advice, and what the consequences of these are. It is not intended to direct how the supplier should put this right though the report could indicate what approaches might be considered. Suppliers should decide themselves how best to implement corrective

16 If a file is so poorly managed that another fee earner would be unable to take the case over, this concern would probably be placed in the major areas of concern


April 2005

33

action procedures/processes to ensure that they are appropriate for their firm. However, corrective action is often based around one or more of the following:

• Supervision • File reviews • Training • Use of standard letters • Comprehensive advice • Tailored advice

6.18 The peer reviewer will write a specific comment if they feel the supplier

could benefit from including or doing more of the above. It is expected that all peer reviews that rate the level of performance as Threshold Competence (3) or Below Competence (4) will require some form of corrective action. Corrective action for Competence Plus (2) and above will probably not be necessary; however, the supplier will always have the opportunity to take into consideration comments listed under ‘areas for development’.

6.19 A rating (1–5) is given for value for money. This assessment is a

‘peers’ view on whether there has been an effective use of public resources. This takes into account the value to the client, and the use of resources to achieve the outcome. No consequences are incurred as a result of this assessment, it has no impact on a supplier’s contract. This area may undergo development in the future, if this does occur further details will be provided.

6.20 A rating (1–5) is given for overall quality of advice/work reviewed. 6.21 If the peer review has been conducted in the family category, the peer

reviewers specify whether comments relate specifically to a particular area of work, for example Domestic Violence or Divorce, or to the work in general. Individual ratings are awarded for these areas alongside the overall quality rating.

6.22 The report is intended as a reasoned document that explains and

justifies a particular overall rating for the quality of the supplier’s work and is appropriately detailed. Reports for suppliers that have been rated Below Competence (4) and Failure in Performance (5) are more detailed than for those where an Excellence (1) rating is achieved. A supplier should be able to understand why a particular matter is considered by the peer reviewer to be an area of concern, so that they are able to implement remedial measures. Similarly, the supplier should be able clearly to understand from the report why they have achieved their particular rating and not a higher or lower one. The report should, where necessary, also enable the supplier to understand how their rating could be improved.


April 2005

34

6.23 The narrative of the report should be specific enough for the supplier to

understand exactly what is being raised both in terms of positive comments and areas of concern. The report should show what is considered to be good work, with encouragement to continue. Areas of concern should be expressed to enable the supplier, where appropriate, to improve its practice in the future.

6.24 Overall it should be clear from the report:

• What the findings are, and • Why a particular rating has been awarded.

Are there any additional areas that the Peer Review Report should consider in providing a comprehensive commentary of the quality of advice and legal work of a supplier? (Question 11) Representation Process 6.25 Upon receipt of a peer review assessment of Threshold Competence

(3), Below Competence (4) or Failure in Performance (5), the supplier has the right to make representations on the following grounds: • The supplier disputes the overall peer review rating. • The peer review file sample does not appear to the supplier to be

sufficiently representative. • Any other reasonable grounds.

6.26 Representations must be made in writing using the Representations

form and must reach the LSC within 21 days following the receipt of the Peer Review Report. A copy of the Representations form is located in Appendix 5.

6.27 The LSC is responsible for forwarding the representations to the peer

reviewer who conducted the original review. 6.28 Representations cannot be considered unless the original file sample (in

its original form as previously submitted) is submitted with the representations.

6.29 The peer reviewer considers the representations and then decides

whether, in light of the comments made by the supplier, any amendments should be made to the report, and if the rating should be changed.

6.30 The peer reviewer draws up a written report recommending one of three

possible outcomes:

• The original rating is upheld. • The original rating is overturned and a new rating is decided.


April 2005

35

• A new review is requested. 6.31 The report is submitted to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS)

for monitoring (although the decision on the rating remains that of the peer reviewer). IALS ensures that the correct process has been followed, and that the peer reviewer has considered and addressed the representations made.

6.32 The decision, with written reasons, is provided to the supplier normally

within 28 days of the representations (and files) being received by the LSC.

6.33 If a supplier does not pursue the right of making representations within

the period specified (or such longer periods as may be agreed) they are thereby deemed to accept the decision and lose the right to dispute it.

Second Peer Review 6.34 A second peer review is scheduled in the following circumstances:

• Where the work of the supplier received a rating of Failure in Performance (5). The second review will be scheduled immediately.

• Where the work of the supplier received a rating of Below Competence (4). The second review will normally be scheduled within six months.

6.35 If a second peer review is required it will be conducted on a new

stratified random sample of work and, conducted by a different peer reviewer. The process followed is the same as that for an initial peer review.

6.36 We consider that it is reasonable to charge for second reviews in

circumstances where the peer review rating is Below Competence (4) or Failure in Performance (5). The supplier would be expected to meet the cost of the review (which would be in the region of £1300). This cost would be reimbursed if the second review overturns the findings of the first review.

6.37 However we have no immediate plans to introduce a charge. Should we

intend to do so, for example in specific circumstances, we will give advanced notice.


April 2005

36

6.38 Peer Review Process Flow Chart INITIAL PEER REVIEW

CONTRACT NOTICE ISSUED

Scheduleimmediately

PEER REVIEWPROCESS ENDS

RATING OF 3

REPS PROCESS

Scheduled within 6 months

CONFIRMED RATING OF 1 OR

2 RATING OF 4

OR 5

CONFIRMED RATING OF 2

PEER REVIEWPROCESS ENDS CONFIRMED

RATING OF 3


REPS PROCESS


PEER REVIEW

CONFIRMED RATING OF 5 PEER REVIEW


5

REPS PROCESS

CONTRACT NOTICE ISSUED


Schedule within6 months CONFIRMED

RATING OF 5

TERMINATION NOTICE ISSUED

CONTRACTREMOVED

PEER REVIEW RATING OF 3, 4,

OR 5

REPS PROCESS



TERMINATION NOTICE ISSUED

CONTRACTREMOVED


5

6.39 This chart represents the most likely outcomes following peer review. Does the process as identified in 6.38 provide an effective and efficient mechanism for confirming the rating of the quality of advice and legal work of a supplier? (Question 10)


April 2005

37

7 PEER REVIEW OUTCOMES AND REPORTING Feedback to suppliers 7.1 All suppliers receive written feedback, in the form of the Peer Review

Report, on the outcome of their review (see Section 6). No report is fed back, or action taken on the basis of a result, until the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS) has reviewed the rating and associated comments. The result remains provisional until the full peer review process has been completed (as described in paragraphs 6.6-6.33).

7.2 No changes are made to the peer reviewer’s assessment or comments;

however, the report is formatted,17 and then forwarded to IALS where the report is reviewed prior to being fed back to the supplier.

7.3 IALS considers the report and check that the peer review process and

methodology has been followed correctly, and that the comments made are reflective of the rating that the peer reviewer has given the supplier. IALS will not alter a peer reviewer’s rating.

7.4 Where IALS considers there to be a concern regarding the outcome of a

review, for example if the comments made do not support the rating, or a particular peer reviewer appears to be consistently awarding a particular rating, IALS will investigate and resolve the matter before the report is fed back to the supplier.

7.5 Investigations by IALS may involve discussing the matter with the peer

reviewer, and/or the request of further information regarding the review or the reviewer’s previous ratings. If, following investigation, concerns still exist, a separate peer review may be requested.

7.6 IALS also monitor and analyse data from peer review, including the

range of peer review ratings each peer reviewer awards in comparison to other panel members, as described in paragraph 3.31 - 3.32.

Outcomes 7.7 Following completion of the full peer review process, the result will be

confirmed. The result of the peer review will be utilised by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) as an accurate reflection of the competence of the supplier.

17 The report is sense-checked and any spelling or grammatical errors are corrected. The report is then formatted in the house style


April 2005

38

7.8 Full descriptions of all the ratings can be found in Section 2. The Peer Review Process Flow Chart (Section 6.36) details the process and outcomes possible for each peer review rating, further information of which is provided below:

Excellence (1) Competence Plus (2) 7.9 A rating of Excellence (1) or Competence Plus (2) indicates that the

supplier is conducting work to a high degree of competence. This is the level of performance that the LSC currently considers necessary for a supplier to be awarded ‘Preferred’ status. The result is recorded and will normally be valid for three years, provided that there are no significant changes to personnel (especially the category supervisor), or the supplier’s quality profile does not indicate a possible reduction in performance. If the supplier wishes to apply for ‘Preferred’ status, their peer review rating will be put forward in that category of law.

Threshold Competence (3) 7.10 A rating of Threshold Competence (3) indicates that, although the quality

of work that is delivered is proficient, there will be some areas of concern regarding the quality of advice and legal work, which need to be addressed. The outcome may also indicate that specific requirements of the Specialist Quality Mark (SQM) are not being met. The peer review identifies potential corrective action and areas for development, and should be used to form a development plan for the supplier.

7.11 Proposals for corrective action should be submitted to the supplier’s

Account Manager within 28 days of the final confirmation of the peer review outcome. Progress against these proposals will be considered at future audits. Addressing any areas of concern/development raised during peer review will enable the supplier to improve their rating at subsequent peer reviews and potentially achieve the level required to be awarded ‘Preferred’ status.

Below Competence (4) 7.12 A rating of Below Competence (4) indicates that a supplier’s work is

being conducted at a standard below that which a client is reasonably entitled to expect from a competent solicitor, and is in breach of Clause 3.2 of the General Contract Standard Terms.18 The breach of the

18 Clause 3.2 “You must perform all Contract Work and exercise your Devolved Powers in a timely manner and with all reasonable skill, care and diligence. You must perform your obligations to record and report data accurately. Your claims must be true, accurate and reasonable.”


April 2005

39

Contract will result in the issue of a Contract Notice under Clause 20.11.19

7.13 Proposals for corrective action should be submitted to the supplier’s

Account Manager within 28 days of receipt of the confirmed peer review outcome. Progress against these proposals will be considered at future audits.

7.14 A second peer review will normally be scheduled within six months to

check that the quality has improved. The review will be conducted on a stratified random sample of new and closed work since the date of the first peer review.

7.15 If there are insufficient files for a full peer review, the file sample will

consist of all available work completed during that period. 7.16 If this review also results in a rating of Below Competence (4), it will

normally be appropriate to terminate the supplier’s right to conduct publicly funded legal services in the relevant category of law, and may be appropriate to terminate the entire contract.

Failure in Performance 7.17 A rating of Failure in Performance (5) (following two separate peer

reviews as described in Section 6) indicates that the supplier is conducting work at a standard that is significantly below that which a client is reasonably entitled to expect from a competent solicitor. There has been a fundamental breach of the Contract (Clause 3.2 of the Contract Standard Terms) and it will normally be appropriate to terminate the supplier’s right to conduct publicly funded legal services in the relevant category of law, and may be appropriate to terminate the entire contract.

7.18 In the event of a termination as a result of peer review, suppliers have

the rights of review as set out in the Clause 23 of the Contract Standard Terms.

7.19 Account Managers may discuss with the supplier how their rating will

affect their contract (as described in paragraphs 7.9 – 7.18), and explain the representations process. Where peer reviewers have identified corrective action, the supplier will be required to outline how this will be addressed in line with the requirements of the ‘General Contract’.

19 Clause 20.11 “If you have breached this Contract (except for failure to comply with the SQM) and the breach is not capable of remedy, we are entitled to serve a notice on you requiring you not to repeat the breach. If you repeat the breach or we serve you with two further notices (one or each of which may be a rectification notice) in connection with any breach, we may serve you notice terminating this Contract, or any part of it, with effect from such date as we may specify in such notice.”


April 2005

40

7.20 Outputs from peer review may be used to inform future activity, for

example investigation of issues at control audit. 7.21 LSC staff will not be able to explain, justify or alter any comments that

appear on the report, as the report and the ratings decision is an independent assessment, written by the peer reviewer.

7.22 In Section 8 we set out our intention with regard to publishing generic,

anonymised peer review information to enable the identification of best practice and areas for development. In keeping with the spirit of this intention we will also provide information about the overall peer review rating of individual suppliers to the relevant regulatory bodies, for example the Law Society, OISC. Note. Subject only to the provisions set out in paragraph 6.5 we will only provide the overall rating, we will not provide any information concerning the individual files, or client information.


April 2005

41

8 IDENTIFYING AND ENABLING BEST PRACTICE 8. 1 The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is committed to enabling and

supporting suppliers’ ability to provide high quality legal advice and work. 8.2 Peer review results provide a wealth of information relating directly to the

quality of advice and legal work provided to clients, identifying areas of good practice and those areas most in need of improvement/development.

8.3 For example category specific National Benchmarking exercises will

provide an assessment of the overall level of quality for the supplier base in a particular category of law, and identify any variance at a regional level.

8.4 The LSC will summarise and prioritise this information and will make it

available to suppliers. This exercise will be conducted on a quarterly basis and will be published on the LSC website and in relevant publications.

8.5 Using this information suppliers will be able to undertake self-

assessment against the key areas identified, and where necessary implement changes to make improvements.

8.6 A continuing cycle of the identification of the most frequent

problems/areas of good practice, self assessment by suppliers against the findings with appropriate corrective action, followed by further peer review and further identification of key trends/issues will provide a powerful mechanism to assist suppliers further improve the quality of their advice and legal work.

8.7 The LSC is currently in discussion with the Law Society to investigate

appropriate initiatives that make use of peer review findings that will benefit the supplier base as a whole, for example the development of training courses on best practice.


April 2005

42

9 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9.1 The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is committed to promoting

equality of opportunity for the suppliers and clients of legal aid services. The LSC’s Equality Scheme requires us to consult on our preliminary assessment of the impact of policy initiatives on the promotion of equality in relation to race and where relevant gender and disability. The preliminary impact assessment set out below considers the possible impact the peer review process may have on the promotion of race equality. We do not consider the peer review process to have significant issues in relation to gender and disability.

Ethnicity of Peer Reviewers 9.3 There are currently 80 peer reviewers. Over the last two years the LSC

has monitored the peer review recruitment process. Currently, almost 14% of Legal Aid fee earners are from minority ethnic backgrounds.20 17% of applicants for the position of Independent Peer Reviewer were from minority ethnic backgrounds and 25% of those recruited to the position of peer reviewer were from minority ethnic backgrounds,21 indicating that those applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds were more qualified for the position. This shows peer reviewers are more ethnically diverse than the LSC supplier base. The LSC will continue to monitor applications for the position of peer reviewer as well as those recruited to the position. This will be conducted in terms of ethnicity, gender and disability.

Equalities and Diversity Training for Peer Reviewers 9.3 All peer reviewers will receive equalities and diversities training as part of

their initial peer review induction. As report writing forms a large part of the role of a peer reviewer the course will include a section on communicating fairness, which will cover use of language.

The Selection of Files for Peer Review 9.4 The LSC does not consider that the process of selecting files for peer

review will have a negative impact on BME suppliers. As shown in section 5 of this paper, the methodology for selecting files is a random stratified sample, with a 95% confidence level, developed independently from the LSC by Paul Fenn, a statistician from Nottingham University Business School.

20 LRSC Fourth Annual Equal Opportunities Report, Legal Services Research Centre P10


April 2005

43

Ethnicity of Contracted Suppliers 9.5 The Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC), the independent research

division of the LSC is responsible for the LSC Equal Opportunities Questionnaire. This is sent to suppliers annually and requests information on the ethnicity, gender, age and disability of the employees of all legal aid contracted firms. The LSRC is responsible for monitoring the impact of our contracting programme on the equal opportunities profile of suppliers. The LSRC has conducted equal opportunities research for the LSC since 2000 and each year publishes a report on the profile of the supplier base. The reports are available on the LSRC website at http://www.lsrc.org.uk.

9.6 Peer Review is conducted by selecting a random sample of files per

category of law. Peer Review Benchmarks 9.7 The LSC is currently conducting a number of random peer reviews,

which have been stratified by region and category of law. This is in order to establish a Peer Review Benchmark of the quality of advice provided in each category of law according to the rating achieved at peer review. In Summer 2005 an analysis of these results will be conducted. This will compare the peer review rating and the ethnic profile of the suppliers in order to see whether there are any disproportionate relationships between the ethnicity of the supplier and the peer review rating achieved for the sample of files reviewed in each category of law.

9.8 The LSC does not consider the process of recruiting peer reviewers or

the selection of files to have an adverse impact on BME suppliers. We believe that any disproportional relationship found between the ethnicity of the supplier and the rating achieved at peer review will be indirectly associated. However, the LSC will investigate any disproportionate findings and will work with the representative bodies of the Legal Aid profession (such as the Law Society, LAPG, Black Solicitors Network) to develop positive action if it is found that a disproportionate number of BME owned or controlled firms are not achieving a rating of Threshold Competence (3) or above. The results of the Peer Review Benchmark exercise will be published in the Fifth LSC Annual Equal Opportunities Report in Autumn 2005. The LSC will continue to monitor and publish on an on-going basis the ethnic profile of the suppliers peer reviewed against the peer review rating achieved in each category of law.

Impact Assessment 9.10 The proposals contained within this consultation paper do not directly discriminate against suppliers on the grounds of race. By continually monitoring the peer review process in terms of recruitment and training of

http://www.lsrc.org.uk/


April 2005

44

peer reviewers, ensuring that only randomly selected files are peer reviewed and the outcomes of peer review in terms of ratings are monitored against the ethnic profile of firms, BME firms, all else being equal, will have the opportunity to grow and develop their businesses. However, if we identify any particular groups through ongoing monitoring activity who are adversely affected, we will take steps to ensure the provision of ethnically diverse quality services. This will be conducted in consultation with the professional bodies representing the Legal Aid profession. Question 12: Do you agree with the preliminary equalities impact assessment?


April 2005

45

10 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS FOR THE CONSULTATION 10.1 In parts of this consultation paper we have asked for your views on

particular topics. For your convenience please find listed below all the questions posed as part of this paper.

Section 2: Independent Peer Review Methodology

Question 1 Do you agree that the process of Independent Peer Review is independent of the LSC? If you disagree, please provide reasons. Question 2 Do you believe there are any additional criteria that may enhance the peer review assessment? Question 3 Are the ratings sufficient to differentiate between supplier performance?

Section 3: The Peer Reviewers

Question 4 Are the recruitment criteria set at the appropriate level? Question 5 Are there any additional training and assessment mechanisms we should consider? Question 6 Do you agree with the process for ensuring the consistency of peer reviewers?

Section 5: Peer Review Logistics

Question 7 Do you agree that the stratification of the crime file sample is appropriate? Question 8 Do you agree that the stratification of the family file sample is appropriate? Question 9 Are the criteria sufficient to identify all potential conflicts of interest?


April 2005

46

Section 6: The Peer Review Process

Question 10 Does the process as identified in 6.38 provide an effective and efficient mechanism for confirming the rating of the quality of advice and legal work rating of a supplier?

Question 11 Are there any additional areas that the Peer Review Report should consider in providing a comprehensive commentary of the quality of advice and legal work of a supplier?

Section 9: Equal Opportunities Impact Assessment

Question 12 Do you agree with the preliminary equalities impact assessment?


April 2005

47

APPENDIX 1

Peer Review Criteria and Guidance

Appendix 1A Peer Review Criteria – Civil Files A. Communication with the Client: 1. How well does the adviser appear to have understood the client’s problem? 2. How effective were the adviser’s communication and client-handling skills? 3. How effective were the adviser’s fact- and information-gathering skills? 4. How effectively was the client informed of:

a) The merits (or not) of the claim? and b) All developments?

B. The Advice: 1. How legally correct was the advice given? 2. How appropriate was the advice to the client’s instructions? 3. How comprehensive was the advice? (For Family, see over.) 4. Was the advice given in time/at the right time? C. The Work/Assistance: 1. If no other work was carried out, was this appropriate? 2. If any further fact-finding work was carried out:

a) How appropriate and b) How efficiently executed was the work?

3. If any other work was carried out: a) How appropriate was the work? and b) How efficiently executed was the work?

4. How effective in working towards what the client reasonably wanted/needed was any further work carried out?

5. If no disbursements were incurred was this appropriate? 6. How appropriate were any disbursements incurred? 7. Where this is necessary, did the adviser consider/advise on/act on an

effective referral? 8. Throughout the file how effectively did the organisation use resources? 9. Did the adviser or their work in any way prejudice the client? If yes, provide details overleaf. Overall mark


April 2005

48

APPENDIX 1

Peer Review Criteria and Guidance Appendix 1B Civil Criteria – Notes for General Guidance The criteria are marked either Yes/No or on a sliding scale of 1–5: 1 = Excellence; 2 = Competence Plus; 3 = Threshold Competence; 4 = Below Competence; 5 = Failure in Performance. A. Communication with the Client 1. Understanding the problem includes identifying the issues. The most effective way of assessing these issues from the file is to look for: 1. A clear note of all interviews, either in original form or as part of the letters

sent to the client confirming the instructions. 2. A clear record of all advice given, either on attendance notes or as part of

the letters sent to the client confirming instructions, or on a statement or in supporting documents.

If it is noted on the file that the client has any particular communication problems (for example with language or literacy), it is appropriate to consider whether the chosen methods of communication were suited to the client. Any statement taken from a client would need to show that the adviser had a good grasp of the client’s needs and problems, and that the client had the opportunity to convey sufficient details, given the particular circumstances of the client. A statement should be checked with the client and an interpreter if needed. B. The Advice This section applies to the initial and subsequent advice, and should include a clear explanation of the options open to the client, and what immediate action needs to be taken, and by whom. 3. Comprehensiveness – This should include: consideration of whether the adviser identified issues other than the immediate presenting problem, possibly necessitating separate advice or referral elsewhere (overlap with C8; consideration of whether the adviser used a holistic approach and (if different) whether the adviser considered all the client’s problems, both legal and other, when formulating the advice.


April 2005

49

4. Timing –This relates directly to the adviser’s knowledge and understanding of procedure and its practical application. C. The Work/Assistance 2. Refers to fact-finding work that has been carried out since the first interview. 2 & 3. Efficiently – Inherent in the definition of efficiency is promptness. 4. Effective –For example communications should be accurate, comprehensible and clear. In some cases, where no amount of letter-writing etc. will overcome the other side’s intransigence, the reviewer will need to consider whether the adviser adopted tactics that would be effective to achieve what the client reasonably wanted/needed. 8. In considering this question, the reviewer should look at the chances of success of the case, and whether the case was a reasonable use of public funds, taking into account the importance of the issue to the client. Overall mark –This is the mark the reviewer allocates to the case as a whole, having already assessed the file against the review criteria, but is not necessarily an arithmetical averaging of the other marks.


April 2005

50

APPENDIX 1

Peer Review Criteria and Guidance Appendix 1C Specialist Subject Criteria – Notes for Guidance Debt: C8. It was considered that, particularly within the not-for-profit sector, the client can be viewed as a resource and utilised to carry out a specific self-help role in the case. If the client has been doing this, the reviewer should consider whether it appears that the client has understood the role clearly. Employment: As there is legal aid for only a small number of a certain type of employment cases, it is likely that a substantial amount of work will be done on a green form. The following should be evidenced on file where a case proceeds beyond advice: 1. Documentary evidence from the client re earnings etc. 2. Statements from witnesses – either as full attendance notes or formal

statements. 3. The execution of a cost–benefit analysis, which includes consideration of

quantum, mitigation and recoupment and discussion of this with the client. Housing: The following should inform the reviewer’s assessments when applying the general criteria: 1. There are significant geographical variations in the options that are

available to the adviser and client because of differing local policies and practices.

2. Whether the problem has been correctly identified. There is a great deal of

overlap between Debt/Housing/Welfare Benefits/Immigration/Mental Health.

Immigration: The following generic criteria should be amplified in immigration cases:


April 2005

51

A3. Should include consideration of whether the adviser fully investigated the client’s immigration history, status etc. In terms of section A generally, there should be evidence on file that the adviser has ascertained how the client and any dependants are being maintained and accommodated, and that the adviser has addressed, either by action or referral, any issues this raises. Q1, 2 & 4. It would be appropriate for the adviser to take the necessary steps to obtain all relevant supporting documents. Use of the correct forms by the adviser is of critical importance, and the reviewer should be alert to Home Office return of incorrect forms. C5. In considering disbursements, you should consider whether an interpreter was instructed, if required. If so, was the interpreter appropriate in all the circumstances (for example linguistic ability and independence)? C7. ‘Referral’ includes referring the client to other helping organisations. Mental health: A2. Communication with clients who are mentally disordered can be challenging. Advisers should be alert to any difficulties and demonstrate a willingness to build up an appropriate professional relationship. C2 & 3. There should be a consideration of the validity of both the client’s detention and entitlement to a review. C2 & 3. The Transaction Criteria are considered a useful tool in determining the usual steps in preparing a case. The adviser should consider what information gathering is required, such as an examination of medical records, interviewing potential witnesses, attending professional meetings such as managers’ reviews, s117, and CPAmeetings, or obtaining expert evidence. C2 & 3. The adviser should demonstrate adequate preparation for a hearing, whether by use of a skeleton argument or notes of factual issues. The adequacy of the reasons for any decision should be considered. Welfare benefits: A3. The information-gathering role of the adviser is crucial, because detailed information about the client’s immediate situation (including details of all benefits received) and background are needed if the adviser is to advise fully. B3. ‘Comprehensive’ should include –

• Advice on different benefits to which the client may be entitled. • If an appeal is being considered, advice on the risk that a re-

assessment may result in a decrease or even loss of benefit rather


April 2005

52

than an increase, if the client is assessed at a lower level of need than on the initial application.

B4. Time limits for appeals are tight, and the reviewer should check on file that an effective diary system was used. Family: C8. ‘Referral’ includes referring the client to other helping organisations.


April 2005

53

APPENDIX 1

Peer Review Criteria and Guidance Appendix 1D Peer Review Criteria – Criminal Files The File 1. How effective is the composition of the file? 2. How appropriate is the level of information recorded:

a) At investigation stage? b) Post charge?

3. How appropriate was the management of the case throughout? B. Communication 1. How appropriate were the lawyer’s communication and

client-handling skills? 2. How appropriately was the client informed of:

a) The merits (or not) of their defence/case? b) All developments (including conclusion)?

3. How appropriate was the lawyer’s communication with others, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), defence counsel etc.?

4. How timely was all communication? C. Information and fact-gathering 1. How effective was the lawyer in seeking relevant information from the

client? 2. How effective was the lawyer in seeking relevant information from the

police and/or prosecution: a) At investigation stage? b) Post charge?

3. How effective was the lawyer in seeking relevant information from others? D. Advice and assistance 1. How good was the advice? 2. a) How appropriate was advice on plea?


April 2005

54

b) If (at any stage) the client was advised to plead guilty, was the timing of the advice:

(i) too early? (ii) appropriate? (iii) too late?

3. How appropriate was advice on appeal? E. The work/assistance 1. Was all work done that should reasonably have been done? If No, specify 2. How effective was the work done in achieving the client’s (reasonable)

objectives? 3. What was the impact of the lawyer on:

a) Bail? b) Mode/venue? c) The process? d) What convicted of, or not e) Sentence?

4. Was the client prejudiced in any way by the work done or not done? If Yes, specify. F. Efficiency 1. How efficiently was the work carried out? 2. Throughout the file, how effectively did the organisation use resources

(including experts)? 3. Were any disbursements incurred appropriate? G. General 1. Where ethical issues arise, were they dealt with appropriately? 2. Overall mark:

(a) At Investigation Stage (b) At Magistrates Court Stage (c) At Crown Court Stage

3. Overall mark for the file


April 2005

55

APPENDIX 1

Peer Review Criteria and Guidance Appendix 1E Peer Review of Criminal Files – Notes for Guidance General In reviewing a file, a reviewer should look at the whole file (or files), and take into account work done (or not done) in respect of all relevant stages. Some files may have been selected that are not suitable for peer review. These are:

• Files where there has been a change of solicitor prior to completion of any particular stage (for example you should not review a file if there has been a change of solicitor during magistrates’ court proceedings, but you should review a file where a firm advised a client at the police station up to the point of charge, but the client went to another firm for the magistrates’ court stage).

• Files where there is insufficient information on the file to make an assessment ( for example where linked files containing relevant information concerning the file in question are missing).

If a file comes under one of these two categories, do not review it, but note the reason on the form or computerised data system. Fee earner (where known): If possible, note the name (or identity) of every person who has done significant work on the file. If the quality of the work differs significantly between different people who have worked on the file, make a brief explanatory narrative entry. Case complexity and case seriousness: Circle the most relevant categories. ‘Seriousness’ concerns both the nature of the alleged offence(s) and the circumstances of the alleged offender (for example they have relevant previous convictions, which are likely to make the penalty greater). ‘Complexity/difficulty’ relates to the circumstances of the alleged offence(s) (for example complex facts and/or evidence) and the circumstances of the alleged offender (for example mental disorder). Seriousness and complexity should be judged by reference to the standards relevant to the trial court in which the case is finally dealt with. For example if a case is committed to the crown court for trial, it should be judged by reference to the crown court, but if a case is committed to the crown court for sentence, it should be judged by reference to the magistrates’ court.


April 2005

56

Lead charge: Insert the most serious offence (if more than one). Other charge(s): Insert all other offences (alleged if at the investigation stage, charged or summons, or on the indictment if at the court stage). Claim code(s): Insert all relevant claim codes for work done on the file. The File 1. If it is appears that the file is not in the condition it would have been during

the case ( for example because it has been rearranged by a costs draftsman), leave blank.

2. The appropriate level of recorded information will depend upon a variety of factors such as the seriousness of the allegation(s), whether it is a clear guilty plea, etc.

3. Assessment of the management of the case will be based upon evidence in the file as to allocation, supervision, continuity, use of counsel, etc.

B. Communication ‘Appropriate’ means appropriate by reference to the person being communicated with. 1. This involves an overall assessment of communication and client-handling

skills as evidenced in the file. 2. Note that question D3 deals specifically with advice regarding appeal. This

question is concerned with how well they were informed about merits/developments other than advice regarding appeal.

C. Information and fact gathering 1. This question is concerned with the actions taken (or not taken) in order to

obtain relevant information from the client. Thus, for example, the fact that there are little or no instructions on the file would not result in a low mark if it is apparent that the lawyer took appropriate steps to obtain information, but was not successful for reasons beyond their control.

2. Ditto. 3. Ditto. D. Advice and Assistance 2. (a) The appropriateness of the advice on plea includes the timing of the

advice. Question 2(b) is concerned specifically with the timing of advice to plead

guilty (where relevant). 3. This requires an assessment of both the timing of the advice and the actual

advice given.


April 2005

57

E. The Work/Assistance 1. This question is concerned with whether the lawyer/firm had done enough

work on the case, having regard to seriousness, complexity, nature etc of the case. If work was done that was not necessary, that should be assessed separately under F1 and/or F2.

2. This involves an assessment, in effect, of the skill with which the lawyer/firm sought to achieve the client’s reasonable objectives.

3. This is concerned with the ‘value added’ by the lawyer/firm in relation to bail, mode decision, etc. Is it apparent from the file that the work done by the lawyer/firm led to a result that was better than expected, as expected etc?

4. A Yes assessment should only be given if it is clear from the file that the client was, in fact, prejudiced.

F. Efficiency 1. In relation to the work that was done, was it timely, carried out expeditiously

etc? 2. This includes whether work was done that was not necessary, as well as

whether the lawyer/firm made effective use of resources both within and outside the firm, for example instructing agents for a distant court hearing, and whether this was appropriate, effective use of experts, counsel etc.

G. General 1. This question is relevant where it is clear from the file that there was an

ethical issue such as conflict of interests, client confidentiality, duty to the court etc.

2. This involves an overall assessment of the three stages (as relevant), and should be based upon an overall impression of the standard of work done on the file, rather than a mechanical adding up of the scores given in respect of the other criteria.


April 2005

58

Appendix 2

Peer Reviewer Personal Specification

This document sets out the essential and preferred requirements for potential peer reviewer candidates. These requirements are used when shortlisting candidates, and any evidence of meeting these requirements is assessed from the candidate’s CV and letter of application. When completing a letter of application and CV, it is suggested that candidates refer to the requirements set out below. N.B. Due to number of applicants with a high level of experience (particularly in Crime and Family), candidates who do not demonstrate that they meet both the essential and the preferred requirements are very unlikely to be shortlisted. Casework experience

Essential requirements Must have a minimum of 5 years’ PQE casework experience in the ‘specialist’ category of law Must have a current caseload in specialist area of law Preferred requirements 10 years’ casework experience in specialist category of law 50% of time spent working (casework, supervision training etc) in ‘specialist’ category

Supervisory skills Essential requirements Currently must meet LSC Specialist Quality Mark supervisors’ requirements Currently must supervise other fee earners/caseworkers Must have a minimum of 3 years’ experience as a supervisor (both of staff, and meeting LSC requirements Preferred requirements Experience of supervising at least four different fee earners/caseworkers, preferably with different levels of experience and preferably in a range of different firms Experience of supervising staff in the ‘specialist’ category of law


April 2005

59

LSC contract experience Essential requirements Must have 3 year experience working under a LSC contract Must currently work under a LSC ‘General Contract’ Preferred requirements LSC SQM named supervisor in specialist category of law Experience of working with LSC as Franchise/Quality Manager or through preparation for audits

Other Preferred requirements A practicing solicitor (in England and Wales) Experience working in or with several different suppliers Experience working in the not-for-profit sector (social welfare categories only) Experience of assessing the work of others, particularly in the ‘specialist’ area of law ( for example tribunal member, panel assessor, trainer or carrying out independent file reviews) Ability to appreciate different ways of working (in particular in relation to casework) Open-mindedness coupled with independence Some understanding of the nature of funding legal work Some considered thought on the nature or concept of legal competence


April 2005

60

Appendix 3

Randomisation Tools Appendix 3A Random Selection of Suppliers for the National Benchmark The sample size of the benchmark is set (usually approximately 50 firms per category of law). The random sample is stratified according to the number of suppliers in any given region holding a contract in the identified category of law. The following process is then followed to randomly select the suppliers:

1 A list of all contract holders, and their regional locations, in any given category of law is generated.

2 This list is then randomised using a randomisation tool in Microsoft Excel.

3 The list is then filtered by region. 4 The requisite number of suppliers for each region are then selected

starting from the top of the randomised list. Appendix 3B Random File Selection

A stratified random sample of 20 files is selected per category of law for the purpose of peer review. All the files selected will normally have been closed within the last 12 months. The sample is stratified based on the spread of work that a supplier conducts.22 The files for review are selected by a randomisation tool in Access.

Files are selected as follows:

• A list of all a supplier’s recently closed case files (in a category of law) is generated from data of cases reported to the Legal Services Commission (LSC). (Cases closed more than 12 months earlier are not included.)

• The file lists are then run through a randomisation tool in Access that

selects 20 files

22 This is the proportion of work in each matter type (civil) or claim code (crime)


April 2005

61

Appendix 4

Peer Review Report Peer Review Report template

Legal Services Commission Peer Review Report Form

Supplier

Account No

Category

Peer Reviewer

Date of Review

The Review Positive Findings Major Areas of Concern Other Areas of Concern Further Comments Suggested Areas for Corrective Action Did the firm provide value for money for the LSC in relation to service to client and use of public funds? Overall Assessment of the Quality of the Work on the files of the supplier reviewed


April 2005

62

Appendix 4

Peer Review Report Example Peer Review Report

Legal Services Commission Peer Review Report

This report is a fictional and includes examples of comments across a range of categories of law. No single report would look like this as each report deals with one category of law only. Peer reviewers may take matters other than those reflected here into account in order to determine the quality of advice and legal work evidenced by the peer review. Also peer review reports will vary in length. Supplier: John Alfred Smith & Co

Account No: X2C 12345

Category: Various

Date of Review: 1st to 3rd March 2005

The Review This review of John Smith & Co’s work in Crime/Family/Immigration/ Housing/etc was carried out at the Llaregyb Regional Office of the Legal Services Commission on 1st March 2005 from 9.30 to 5.30. Work on the Report continued on 3rd March 2005 between the hours of 2.30 and 4.00 p.m. The following files were reviewed: Crime example AB – UFN0123456 - Police Station and Magistrates Court AC – UFN0123457- Police Station only BD – UFN0123458 - Police Station, Magistrates Court and Crown Court Family example GH – UFN032423 – Family – Children – Public Law IJ – UFN064512 – Family - Divorce KL – UFN076523 – Family - Divorce MN – UFN087612 – Family – Children – Private Law Immigration example OP – UFN098723 - Immigration QR – UFN089112 – Immigration - Asylum ST – UFN0723423 – Immigration – Asylum Housing example UV – UFN0623423 – Housing – Homelessness/threat of homelessness Welfare Benefits example YZ - UFN042346 – Welfare Benefits – Benefit Challenge


April 2005

63

The Review cont. Community Care example AZ – UFN032462 – Community Care –Challenging a local authority assessment Debt example BY- UFN023456 – Debt –Multiple Debts EF – UFN0123459 This file was not considered as it involved work from another firm and was allied to a separate file that was not present for review.

Positive Findings [NB These are a range of findings covering different subject areas. They are offered as examples only.] • Very neat and well organised files with clear detailed and simple letters of advice explaining the legal issues and options available to the client. • The court process is dealt with well and there are good systems for picking

up the various procedural dates and responding to them. • Correspondence to third parties was clear, concise and set out the legal

arguments. • Detailed first attendance notes are included with the client care letter that

not only records comprehensively the information given by the client, but also sets out the advice given and action to be taken. One legal help file did this particularly well.23

• All reviewed files were actioned promptly. A particularly good example of

this is one injunction file24 where an ex parte injunction with a power of arrest was obtained later on the same day as the client's initial instructions. (Family)

• The files showed that the adviser had a working knowledge of debt advice,

drafting appropriate financial statements, creditors details and identifying priority and non priority debts at an early stage. (Debt)

• The organisation was particularly good at dealing with difficult

homelessness cases and the legal issues arising as a result of challenges to Local Authority decision-making (Housing).

23 See file of AZ 24 For example see the files of GH


April 2005

64

Positive Findings cont. • There was evidence of effective written representations to the Crown and

ability to obtain lesser disposal through persistent lobbying.25 (Crime) • This provider is providing a good service to the community. • On all files reviewed, there appeared to be a continuity of approach by all

fee earners under the supervision of the Partner. • The supplier generally provided a satisfactory level of service to the client

and worked in a way that was cost effective.

Major Areas of Concern [NB These are a range of findings covering different subject areas. They are offered as examples only.] • No advanced warning was given to Respondents in person to a Divorce

Petition on Unreasonable Behaviour. This is against the principles of the Solicitors Family Law Association, with whom the partner was a member, and did not follow the Law Society's Family Law Protocol.26 (Family)

• On one file27, the fact-gathering process had not been carried out

thoroughly. There was evidence that the client could have claimed for criminal injuries following a serious incident and this was not pursued. (Debt)

• In asylum cases:

o There was invariably no advice given on the merits of the claims either at the outset or on appeal.

o The adviser seemed to attend or send representations to interviews as an optional extra. In at least 3 cases, no representations were sent to interviews. This could have been seriously prejudicial to the clients’ cases. (Immigration)

• On one file incorrect advice was given. The client (who was arrested as

driver of a vehicle, and refused to provide a specimen at the roadside and police station) was advised that the offence carried a discretionary disqualification when in fact it carries obligatory disqualification. It was also incorrect to advise that the offence carries a fine up to Level 3, when it can carry a maximum sentence of 6 months in prison28 (Crime)

25 For examples, the file of BD. 26 See the files of IJ and KL 27 See file of BY 28 See file of AC


April 2005

65

Major Areas of Concern cont. • On one file29 there was a failure to chase up defence witnesses, which

could, although in this case did not, have serious consequences for the client. (Crime)

• No evidence was found to illustrate that the firm provided written advice on

possible sentences if the client pleaded guilty or was convicted. (Crime) • The advice was weak in relation to emergency accommodation and

statutory allocations under Part VI & VII Housing Act 1996 - this may be a training need.(Debt)

• The two children files30 reviewed did not indicate that the welfare checklist

or the effect of the final orders had been explained to the clients. (Family) • Generally the advice on Children Act matters was not comprehensive

enough or tailored to the client's needs. - To simply write to the client in terms of "…I confirm you were

advised as to the relevant law and procedure…" without stating what advice was given, is not enough.31 (Family)

• There was no record of the criteria for obtaining Parental Responsibility on

any of the relevant files reviewed.32 (Family)

Other Areas of Concern [NB These are a range of findings covering different subject areas. They are offered as examples only.] • Some files were poorly organised, without separate pleading bundles or

organisation of documents. • CLS leaflets should not be relied upon to substitute advice to a client on

their own personal circumstances. • A number of files were marked by delay, with the client receiving

correspondence from the firm 6-8 weeks after initial attendance or receiving papers from previous solicitors33

• On one file, the adviser did not pick up on the fact that the vulnerable client

had a support worker and therefore no contact was made with them to provide assistance (Housing).

29 See file of WB 30 See the files of GH and MN 31 See the file of GH 32 See the files of GH and MN


April 2005

66

Other Areas of Concern cont. • When the financial statement shows a negative balance, advisers should

give more consideration to the client’s financial strategy. They should consider if there is scope for income maximization, if the client wants to reconsider their expenditure and whether there is a good reason to ask the creditor to write off the debt. (Debt)

• On one file34, no capital details were noted, so eligibility was in question. • On one file35, the client instructions were not passed on and the counter

proposals from the other side were not sent to client (Family) • On one file36, there was no note made of the fee earner’s status. • The firm exhibited weakness when dealing with urgent matters. On some

emergency applications, there was a slight tendency for the urgent element of the situation to be resolved in the manner the adviser wanted and not necessarily how the client desired. Although this was not a serious flaw, more care needs to be taken to ensure that assumptions are not made about what is best for the client. (Family)

Further Comments [NB These are a range of findings covering different subject areas. They are offered as examples only.] • There appeared to be a big difference in the quality of the fee earners within

this firm. • In all cases of telephone advice at the investigation stage, two separate

claims for advice and assistance calls were made. This appeared to be based on training within the firm but is now irrelevant following amendments to the Contract.

• Some files had considerably more time recorded than would be apparent

from correspondence, but it does appear to be supported by attendance notes.

33 See files of AB, AC, BD 34 See the file of YZ 35 See the file of KL 36 See the file of WX


April 2005

67

Suggested Areas for Corrective Action [NB These are a range of findings covering different subject areas. They are offered as examples only.] • There needs to be some record on certificated files of the advice given on

the legal help file. • Standard letters need to be changed to ensure that specific costs estimates

are given. • Standard letters could be used to inform clients when an application for

public funding has been sent to Legal Services Commission. • The supplier may want to consider tailoring their advice letters to ensure

that the client understands the reasons for the advice given. • It is recommended that the supplier implement a system to ensure that

corrective action is closed out following file review. • It is recommended that the supplier implement a system to ensure conflict

checks are always undertaken (see E1.2 of the SQM) • The debt instruction sheet could be improved by adding a section to note

any other debts, so that a more holistic approach could be taken. • The organisation could improve its training in some areas including:

o Preparing for DLA tribunals. o Challenging tribunal decisions. (Welfare Benefits)

• The use of fact sheets would greatly assist the provision of advice to clients

concerning procedure and grounds for applications, including divorce, Children Act, injunctions and ancillary relief. (Family)

Did the firm provide value for money for the LSC in relation to service to client and use of public funds? Overall Assessment Rating. 3

Overall Assessment of the Quality of the Work on the files of the supplier reviewed. 3 – Threshold Competence


April 2005

68

Appendix 5

Peer Review Representations Pro Forma

Legal Services Commission Peer Review Representations Pro Forma

Supplier

Account No

Category

Peer Reviewer

Date of Review The review Positive findings Major areas of concern Other areas of concern Further comments Suggested areas for corrective action Where do you feel the Peer Review Report assisted your firm/organisation? Where do you feel the comments made were unhelpful?


April 2005

69

Appendix 6

Government Code of Practice Criteria The Legal Services Commission (LSC) abides by the Government Code of Practice on Consultation, which came into effect on April 1st 2004. The six consultation criteria in the Code are:

1 Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy.

2 Be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what

questions are being asked and the timescale for responses.

3 Ensure that your consultation is clear, concise and widely accessible. 4 Give feedback regarding the responses received and how the

consultation process influenced the policy. 5 Monitor your department’s effectiveness at consultation, including

through the use of a designated consultation co-ordinator. 6 Ensure your consultation follows better regulation best practice,

including carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment if appropriate. The full text of the government code is available from the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/docs/consultation/pdf/code.pdf

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/docs/consultation/pdf/code.pdf


April 2005

70

Appendix 7

Glossary of key terms

CDS

The Criminal Defence Service ensures access for individuals involved in criminal investigations or proceedings to such advice, assistance and representation as the interests of justice require.

CLS

The Community Legal Service is a structure established under the Access to Justice Act 1999, designed to ensure the provision of quality assured legal advice and information, particularly for the most vulnerable in society.

Gateway assessment peer review

A peer review conducted as part of the assessment of legal competence at the application stage and/or entry to scheme or project

General Civil Contract and General Civil (NfP) Contract

The contract with suppliers through which civil legal and advice services are delivered.

General Criminal Contract

The contract with suppliers through which criminal legal and advice services are delivered.

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

A national academic institution, attached to the University of London, serving all universities through its national legal research library. Its function is to promote, facilitate and disseminate the results of advanced study and research in the discipline of law, for the benefit of persons and institutions in the UK and abroad

Legal Help

Legal advice and assistance funded by CLS Fund

Legal Services Commission

Established on the 1st April 2000 after the Access to Justice Act 1999 to replace the Legal Aid Board.


April 2005

71

Matter starts

A matter refers to an instance of help given by a supplier to a client under the Legal Help scheme and does not cover representation at court. Solicitors' contracts set out the number of matters a supplier is authorised to start in a particular year.

National Benchmark Exercise

Peer reviews conducted on suppliers selected on a random basis. The findings are combined to provide a picture of the level of quality of the overall supplier base

NfPs Not for Profit organisations Peer Review

Peer review is the review of a sample of a supplier’s case files, undertaken by an experienced practitioner who is trained in the peer review framework.

Peer Review Criteria

The criteria that are used to assess files for peer review. Different criteria are used to assess Crime and Civil work.

Peer Review Panel

Category specific grouping of peer reviewers

Public Defender Service (PDS)

CDS Services delivered directly to the public by the LSC, rather than through private practice solicitors.

Quality Mark (QM)

The family of quality assurance standards for legal information, general advice and specialist legal services, which underpins the quality of service provision in both the CLS and CDS.

SPAN

Computerised system for reporting civil cases (Supporting the prioritisation of advice, assistance and representation against need).

SPOCC

Computerised systems for reporting criminal cases (Scrutiny and payment of criminal contracts).

Supplier

Firm/Organisation that holds contract with the LSC to conduct publicly funded work.

Stratified A methodology for ensuring that a selection of data is representative of the population it is selected from.

Legal Services Commission

85 Gray’s Inn Road

London WC1X 8TX

www.legalservices.gov.uk

Documents

of Legal Advice and Legal Work A Consultation Paper · PDF fileof Legal Advice and Legal Work A Consultation Paper April 2005. Independent Peer Review Consultation Paper April 2005Contents