Over the last four months I have been kept busy writing about the outcomes of the Legal Services Commission’s tender exercises. First there was crime, followed by mental health, immigration, family and social welfare.Each exercise has been beset by problems and delay, and produced increasingly bizarre outcomes displaying no consistent strategic aim on the part of the LSC.

Perhaps surprisingly – given the long-term aim of both the previous and current governments to drastically reduce the number of criminal firms – only 5% of existing firms were not offered new contracts.

The mental health and immigration tenders both produced perverse results, with many large experienced firms facing closure after being offered no contract or contracts too small to be economically viable.

At the same time, other smaller and inexperienced firms were offered contracts that they lack the capacity to fulfil, after submitting speculative bids.

And despite an overall reduction in the number of mental health matter starts in London, the number of providers has almost doubled, with the LSC offering contracts to 34 new providers.

The number of family providers has dropped by about 46%, from 2,400 to around 1,300, and while the results for social welfare have yet to be finalised, the LSC said early indications are that 70% of existing providers are likely to receive contract offers.

This result has come about despite the assurance given to the Law Society in January in a letter from Carolyn Regan, the then chief executive of the LSC, that ‘it is not our intention that the tender round should significantly reduce the provider base’.

The result of all this is huge disruption for legal aid providers. While some are now working towards shutting departments, laying off staff or closing down completely, others are desperately trying to recruit staff and sort out new offices.

All this upheaval is going on while the Ministry of Justice is carrying out a review of legal aid with a view to achieving the enormous budget cuts demanded from it by the Treasury.

In the autumn (maybe around the time the new civil contracts begin in October) it will publish what are likely to be major changes to the delivery of legal aid, including significant cuts in its scope, and the fees provided.

This will almost inevitably mean that the government exercises the power contained in the contracts to terminate them with six months’ notice, necessitating further tendering exercises and more uncertainty and disruption for firms.

It seems ridiculous that firms have been put through this lengthy, expensive and shambolic process, only for it to be repeated after the spending review.

Would it not have been more sensible to put in place some form of interim arrangements or extensions to the current contracts?

At the very least firms could have been given some idea of the direction of travel of the government and LSC to help them to plan their futures. Instead, they have been left in a state of limbo and disarray.