SRA will consider “fast-tracking” ABS applications aimed at price competitive tendering

Barrass: public interest merits

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will consider fast-tracking alternative business structure (ABS) applicants who want to bid for the government’s proposed criminal legal aid contracts, Legal Futures can reveal.

The government is currently digesting the thousands of responses to its Transforming Legal Aid consultation, which said that for existing providers to adapt to the bigger caseloads on offer, they would “need to consider new forms of business structures, such as forming ABSs or joint ventures with other organisations”.

Critics have pointed out that with most ABS applications taking several months – or in a few cases more than a year – to receive approval, there seemed little prospect of being able to bring ABSs on stream in time for the procurement process as envisaged by the government. The point was also made by accountants Deloitte in their analysis of the reforms, which also suggested there was little appetite from investors in such ABSs anyway.

The consultation laid out a draft timetable starting with a pre-contract questionnaire stage in October-November 2013, with those applicants that make it through this initial vetting moving to the invitation to tender stage to be held in February and March 2014. The contracts would be awarded in June 2014 and begin operating three months later.

SRA executive director Samantha Barrass told Legal Futures: “Our general approach is to fast-track applications where there is a public interest reason for doing so. We will look at each case on its individual public interest merits, and that will of course be the case for any ABS applications of this type.”

Meanwhile, the Law Society has stepped up its calls for a delay to the implementation of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) in the light of the delay in approval of the scheme by the Legal Services Board (LSB) which in turn meant that publication of the QASA Handbook – which had been scheduled for yesterday – has also been delayed.

The LSB had an initial 28 days to consider application for the various rule changes that would bring in QASA and has taken up the option of extending that to 90 days, expiring on 11 August.

In a statement the Joint Advocacy Group – made up of the three regulators behind QASA, the SRA, Bar Standards Board and ILEX Professional Standards – said: “While [the extension] affects the publication of the QASA handbook, we believe the application will proceed on time to enable our current plans for implementation of the scheme.

“The first registration period is still due to start on schedule on 30 September 2013. The QASA handbook is now expected to be published in summer and a precise date will be provided once the outcome of the LSB’s deliberations on the scheme are known.”

Law Society chief executive Des Hudson reiterated its argument that it is a mistake to implement QASA at a time of major uncertainty for the profession, adding: “The delay to the release of the handbook will reduce the time solicitor-advocates will have to familiarise themselves with the scheme before the first phase for registration is due to open on 30 September for those on the Midland and Western Circuits.”


    Readers Comments

  • Ian West says:

    The public interest requires that all applications for accreditation be thoroughly scrutinised. The SRA MUST be vigilant in looking for potential conflicts of interest where new providers are seeking to provide a criminal legal aid defence service and have, within the company structure, other commercial interests in the administration of criminal justice, such as running custodial establishments, transporting prisoners, administering probation orders and monitoring electronic tags. That means you, G4s and Serco.

  • This is an evil concept. Have you not read all the hostile comments to CPT proposals? Why are you collabarating with the destruction of client choice and Justice

  • Tom Cawley says:

    So essentially you’re saying: in the very scenario in which which you should be subjecting applications to THE GREATEST scrutiny, you’re planning to rubber stamp them?

    Please explain exactly how this is in the public interest? Brand new ventures that are not dealing with clients’ money but merely their liberty should be subject to less scrutiny?

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


AI’s legal leap: transforming law practice with intelligent tech

Just like in numerous other industries, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal sector is proving to be a game-changer.

Shocking figures suggest divorce lawyers need to do more for clients

There are so many areas where professional legal advice requires complementary financial planning and one that is too frequently overlooked is on separation or divorce.

Is it time to tune back into radio marketing?

How many people still listen to the radio? More than you might think, it seems. Official figures show that 88% of UK adults tuned in during the last quarter of 2023 for an average of 20.5 hours each week.

Loading animation