A consultation on new criminal legal aid contracts was announced by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) earlier this week. The announcement follows justice secretary Michael Gove’s u-turn in January on the controversial two tier contracts.  The LAA also announced on 8th June that the current “contingency” contracts, which were introduced after the tender process for the duty contracts was abandoned, will be extended until 31st March 2017.     The consultation will be limited to the Law Society, Bar Council, Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Advice Services Alliance (ASA).  Also, only three weeks has been allowed for feedback on the content of the new contract. For the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association not to get a say on an issue which will directly impact on their members must be somewhat annoying, especially because the duty contracts have little relevance to the Bar and certainly not the ASA, which represents not for profit agencies, none of which have a criminal legal aid contract.     The limited number of bodies consulted and the timescale though, seems to indicate that the LAA will be trying to avoid any controversy, (in contrast to the original consultation on the duty contract proposals which had nearly 4000 responses). The contracts eventually offered are likely to maintain the status quo, in which around 1500 firms undertake police and magistrates court duty work, (the tenders, if they’d gone ahead, would have reduced the number to 527).  It is anticipated that firms will have to apply online for the contracts from July which commence  on 1 April 2017. All very sensible, if that is the plan. There are a couple of outstanding matters which should be dealt with i.e. the so called ghosts, (solicitors who don’t attend the duty slots but sell them on) and, most importantly, investigating what went wrong with the procurement process for duty contracts.     Stories of retired solicitors sunning themselves in warmer climes while still holding duty slots are often recounted when the issue of ghosts is discussed. While it’s difficult to discover how widespread the practice is, the consensus amongst all parties is that it must stop.  A tightening of the rules to allow only currently practicing solicitors, with the requisite experience to hold the contracts would seem to be an obvious fix, but there will be details to sort out.     The court cases, which were pending at the time decision was taken to pull the plug on the tenders, threw-up evidence of serious administrative failings. According to the lawyers representing the firms, the bids were marked inconsistently and basic transcription errors were made. Evidence from a LAA insider indicated that the staff working on the tenders were insufficiently trained and experienced. Lessons need to be learnt from this and people held accountable, if they are found to be at fault. It is simply not good enough, as appears to be happening, for the MoJ and LAA to just move on and learn nothing from their mistakes.     Steve Hynes, LAG Director