Of course it could all be part of a plan. “Getting a bit expensive to pay all those solicitors. Why not make it really difficult for them. Death of a thousand cuts. No-one will believe them when they complain, no voters will anyway. They are just whinging solicitors wanting more gravy.
Then when there are no firms left prepared to do the work, let the supermarkets and big companies take over. They will be able to automate it, do it at a bargain basement price. The clients, sorry customers, won’t know the difference. They don’t understand what its all about anyway. Give them a free digital clock with their first appointment and they’ll be happy.
We don’t want all those small firms anyway, so untidy, much better have one big one like Tesco. Get into a working agreement with them, so they won’t start criticizing and arguing and encouraging their customers to be difficult about government decisions. Things will be much easier. Lawyers will have to behave themselves in future and the exchequer won’t have to hand out all that cash.”
Paranoia or what?
No related posts.
Definitely ‘or what?’ Forcing firms out of legal aid has been the real agenda for years.
I’m with ‘or what’. It might not be Tescos per se, but choice of solicitor is definitely a target – one big firm per area as the legal aid provider would be the LSC’s ideal. (And the area could be large).
For the moment, we continue, but the next wave of contract modifications…
It could cause a bit of a conflict problem though if there is only one big firm per county. But I suppose they will solve that by removing the conflict rules!