Wirral Council spent £10,320 with two different chambers of barristers in the last financial year

Wirral Council spent £10,320 with two different chambers of barristers in the last financial year

Wirral Council spent £10,320 with two different chambers of barristers in the last financial year

                          

Below is a list of what Wirral Council spent on barristers in the last financial year (2013-14) which comes at just over £10,000. Each amount is a total for the 2013-14 by chambers of barristers and is calculated from the lists of invoices over £500 that Wirral Council publish. It is possible the amounts are higher if there are invoices paid that were less than £500. This continues from Wirral Council spent £465,497.06 with six different firms of solicitors in the last financial year.

4-5 Grays Inn £720
Kings Chambers £9600

Total £10,320

Strangely, this doesn’t seem to include the £1,800 paid to Exchange Chambers for the services of Sarah O’Brien in the case involving the possession order for Fernbank Farm. The 2013-14 financial year goes to the end of March 2014, the fast track trial was in mid February, so it’s possible this payment appears in the next financial year.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Why did Wirral Council keep the list of solicitors firms and barristers it could use between 2010-2014 so secret?

Why did Wirral Council keep the list of solicitors firms and barristers it could use between 2010-2014 so secret?

Why did Wirral Council keep the list of solicitors firms and barristers it could use between 2010-2014 so secret?

                                        

Last year I published on this blog a contract with Wirral Council for external legal services called the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement, which was a contract Wirral Council had between 1st April 2010 and the 31st March 2014.

I’ve made many requests to Wirral Council since then for the list of solicitors and barristers (which are in appendices to the agreement) only each time I asked I did not receive the lists. This unanswered Freedom of Information Act request of the 16th May 2014 being the latest request. However anticipating Wirral Council would ignore me, I also made a Freedom of Information request to Sefton Borough Council who did give out the information.

So first is the list of firms of solicitors sorted alphabetically that Wirral Council could use during 2010-2014 through the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement.

Addleshaw Goddard
Anthony Collins
Ashford
Beachcroft
Berrymans Lace Mawer
Bevan Brittan
Brabners Chaffe Street
Cobbetts
Davitt Jones Bould
Devonshires
Dickinson Dees
DLA Piper
DWF
Eversheds
Field Fisher Waterhouse
Forbes
Forshaws Davies Ridgway
Freeth Cartwright
George Davies
Glaisyers
Halliwells
Hammonds
HBJ Gateley Wareing
Hill Dickinson
Mace & Jones
Pannone
Pinsent Masons
Stephensons Solicitors
TPP Law
Weightmans
Whiteheads

Second is the list of firms of barristers chambers sorted alphabetically that Wirral Council could use during 2010-2014 through the collaboration agreement.

2-3 Grays Inn Square
4-5 Grays Inn
5 Essex Court
7 Harrington Street
11 Kings Bench Walk
18 St John Street
39 Essex Street
Arden Chambers
Atlantic Chambers
Cobden House
Deans Court Chambers
Exchange Chambers
Field Court Chambers
Garden Court Chambers
India Buildings
Kings Chambers
Lincoln House Chambers
Old Square Chambers
Oriel Chambers
Ropewalk Chambers
Serle Court
St Ives Chambers
St James Chambers
St Johns Buildings
Young Street Chambers

So why was Wirral Council trying to keep these lists of solicitors and barristers such a secret?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Wirral Council reconsiders secrecy over hourly rates for solicitors and barristers and decides to keep them secret

Wirral Council reconsiders secrecy over hourly rates for solicitors and barristers and decides to keep them secret

Wirral Council reconsiders secrecy over hourly rates for solicitors and barristers and decides to keep them secret

                              

Last year I blogged about how Wirral Council had entered into a contract with solicitors and barristers chambers to keep the hourly rates it was being charged “confidential” (and therefore redacted on the invoices and contract I requested to inspect), when I exercised my right under s.15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 c.18 as part of last year’s audit to inspect various legal invoices Wirral Council had received and the hourly rates included as part of the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement.

There’s a Management Board for the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement and a Consortium Contract Manager and last year I asked for their views on the redaction and pointed out that the contract does allow the hourly rates for legal services to be disclosed with the consent of the companies involved. The response I got is detailed in excerpts from two emails below.

Interestingly the contract also specifies in pages 15 and page 16 that if there are any FOI requests relating to these matters that the Consortium Contract Manager must be notified of any FOI requests relating to it (which is probably why Cllr Ian Lewis’ recent FOI request about the fee Wirral Council paid to the barrister Sarah O’Brien took four weeks to answer.

I thought the answer to the question about supplying the legal rates that I received last year from Wirral Council would be interesting to publish here as it runs completely counter to what politicians say in public about the Labour administration being “open and transparent”.

I’ve not included the person who sent these two emails as he’s merely passing on a response he’s received and I don’t want anyone to “shoot the messenger”.

from: @wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com
cc: Financial Services Coordination
date: 30 August 2013 17:04
subject: RE: legal invoices

Hello Mr Brace,

Thank you for your e-mail

…….

Redaction of Evershed’s and Weightman’s invoices

Your request has been forwarded to the Management Board of the NW Legal Consortium which meets next week. We will get back to you once a response is received from the NWLC Management Board on this matter. Depending upon the outcome of this we can then take a view on your subsequent questions.

I am on leave for the next two weeks. If you have any further need to contact us could you please send it to the financial Services coordination e-mail address and copy in my email address. Matters can then be picked up in my absence.

——————————————————————————————————-

from: @wirral.gov.uk
to: john.brace [at] gmail.com
date: 19 September 2013 16:02
subject: RE: legal invoices
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Redaction of Evershed’s and Weightman’s invoices

Your points have been put to the consortium as requested. The response received is contained below.

There was expectation from the bidders that the hourly rates were provided in confidence. The expectation of bidders whilst submitting the hour rates the information would be used only for the purposes of the tenders only.
We believe that disclosure of the hourly rates would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the law firms that tendered for the contract. As this exemption relates to the legal firms, the Council sought the views of the firms. In response, the Council was provided with the responses below:

(a) The rates on which our legal services are provided to clients are highly sensitive and often pivotal in whether we win or loose work from a client;
(b) There is a real and significant risk that disclosure of the Rates would enable our competitors to undercut us when the Council puts its legal services out to tender again, and also where we are bidding for other public sector work;
(c) The rates were provided in a highly competitive environment and they remain current. The market in which we operate is highly competitive and – more than ever during the recession – clients have been willing to ‘shop around’ for legal services with hourly rates being a key determining factor as to where to place work. Given the Rates are highly competitive (significantly below even our standard local government rates), it is a real risk that this could lead to clients on less competitive rates taking their work elsewhere or not placing work with us. It is also probable that, if the Rates were disclosed and became more widely known, some of our existing Clients will seek to re-negotiate rates to the level of or close to the Rates which again could lead to a significant financial impact on the law firms. Law firms have not gone unscathed in the recession and many firms have been forced to make redundancies and some have even gone out of business. Disclosure of the Rates could therefore lead to not-only a direct and significant impact on our revenue but also damage to our reputation and to the confidence that our clients have in us;
(d) For the reasons described above, disclosure of rates information for legal services could deter legal services providers who may think twice about whether working for public sector clients in the future. This could lead to a market in which the public sector has a diminished pool of legal services providers to choose from (driving quality down and rates up).

If you wish to pursue this latter matter further you would probably need to take your own legal advice regarding the contract confidentiality versus the Audit Commission Act. The Council has erred on the side of contract confidentiality.

The guidance issued by the Audit Commission regarding inspection rights does state that ‘Your right to inspect the accounts is personal which means the external auditor can not get involved.’ My reading of this would mean that neither Grant Thornton nor the Audit Commission would be able to provide a view on this issue.

I hope that this answers your queries.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.