civil
criminal
family
fraud

Fraud Offices

To qualify to be accepted onto the LSC panel the firm had to have a track record of dealing with similar cases. It had to show that it has invested in the infrastructure in terms of IT, office space, precedents and manpower.  It has to have solicitor who has been accepted by the LSC as sufficiently high quality and experience in fraud matters that this solicitor can be included in the Panel as a supervisor of such work.  The firm is then audited by the LSC on a regular basis to ensure that the firm has maintained the quality of work to warrant being kept on the panel.

Inclusion on the Panel allowed the firm to represent clients in very high cost serious fraud cases with the benefit of Public Funding. This includes any fraud case where the defence costs for any one firm will be more than £150,000 (this includes VAT and all disbursements as well as Counsel’s fees) and/or where the trial is estimated to last more than 60 days. 

If a non-panel firm fouind that it was acting on such a case with the benefit of Public Funding then it was under a duty to notify the LSC who will require that firm to hand over the case to a panel firm.  It is important for the client that this is dealt with as early as possible to make sure the panel firm has sufficient time to prepare the case fully. 

We dealt with a number of cases where we were asked to take over cases from other firms (on occasion we would be asked to continue to make use of the Solicitors originally instructed). Such changes can be very distressing for the client who may see the change as an interference with their right to choose their lawyers. We never had a problem immediately earning the client's confidence. We have always been able to get to grips with cases no matter how complex it appears to the client (and other lawyers).

The LSC will deal with such cases to obtain best value for money.  The firm dealing with the case may have to ‘bid’ for various tasks that need to be completed.  It is important that the client is kept fully informed of the bidding process to assist the client to understand the limitations (if any) placed upon the firm by the LSC.

The preparation of a serious fraud case cannot be equated with the preparation of most other criminal matters.  The amount of paperwork involved is usually vast.  The time that needs to be put aside to consider the papers and to take instructions from the client is such that the firm needs to be set up to allow fee-earners to be allocated to such work and allowed to progress (almost) unimpeded until the task is complete.  In the bidding process the LSC will be keen to impose time limits upon the preparation of any particular stage of the preparation.

Although the case papers can appear daunting in volume, the ‘problem’ area can usually be found in the unused material.  This material, collected by the investigating officers with the Criminal Proceedings and Investigation Act (CPIA) in mind, is often vital to the proper preparation of the defence case. 

As a firm we have made a particular study of the subject.  The cases of:-

·        ex parte Lee

·        ex parte Beaney and King 

·        Edwards and Lewis v The U K

were all dealt with by us.

Another area that needs to be considered at various stages relates to the pressure put on judges by their paymaster to progress difficult trials.  Each crown court centre has its Resident Judge who not only tries the more serious cases in his crown court centre but also is responsible for the administration of the court centre. 

To address the areas of difficulty that can arise if a judge is too enthusiastic with orders for disclosure against the defence this firm brought the case of R (Sullivan) v The Crown Court at Maidstone.

The last two governments have done a tremendous amount between them to ensure that the need for good criminal lawyers is on the increase.  The new legislation that follows each breakfast meeting the Home Secretary has with the chief constables and other ‘interest’ groups is just amazing.  At the same time criminal lawyers are under huge attack by the government who are seeking to ensure that the number of criminal lawyers is decreasing rapidly and the flow of new talent to this side of the profession is almost stemmed completely. 

It is not just the criminal lawyer under attack from this government.  The Proceeds of Crime Act is a vast tome and so much of it seems to be an attack on the professionals who advise clients.  The fraud practitioner needs to be well placed to advice other professionals and their clients on the implications of this Act.  It also needs to be borne in mind that the Act is not all doom and gloom.  There are areas in the Act that give rights to individuals to ask a Crown Court judge to make an award for damages against the Police or other prosecuting authorities as well as against the Lord Chancellor (if he still exists) for errors by the Court.

 If you are a lawyer with an interest in stretching your ability in criminal law and see fraud as a vehicle to achieve this; if you believe that you can fall into our ethos that the law should be interpreted as it ought to be and not as it seems to be; if you are happy to work in a firm that offers the ability to conduct criminal litigation in all levels of courts in England and Wales and Europe, the ability to carry out all associated civil work including assisting the clients while serving a term of imprisonment, why not contact Dennis Clarke at the firm to see if we have a position for you.  We are always looking to improve the service that we have to offer.  You may be what we need to improve that service even further.

return to top