The High Court ruled this week that the process used to check the quality standards of firms awarded public law and mental health legal aid contracts breached equality standards, but there was ‘no legal flaw’ in the Legal Services Commission’s public law tender.

Birmingham firm Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) and Wirral firm RMNJ, supported by 10 other firms and with funding from the Law Society, had sought a judicial review of the tenders for public law and mental health (high-security hospitals only) contracts, and the verification exercise used to check the standard of successful bidders.

Mr Justice Cranston ruled that the verification of the quality standards of firms awarded contracts was ‘flawed’. He said this was because the verification had not been completed at the time the contracts were entered into, and the LSC had not been able to check that the supervisor criteria set out in the contracts had been met.

‘That offends against the principle of equal treatment, contrary to European Union law,’ Cranston said.

To remedy any unfairness caused, Cranston said the LSC must ensure that all firms holding public law and mental health contracts comply with the stated supervision standards, and any that do not must have their contracts removed.

The court found there could be no challenge under the general disability equality duty to the process of awarding high security mental health contracts. However, Cranston said that the duty had now been engaged as a result of the tender’s outcome, and the LSC must take steps to comply with the duty where clients with disabilities will be forced to change law firm as a result of the tender outcome.

Cranston also found there was ‘no legal flaw’ in the way the LSC conducted the tendering exercise for the award of public law contracts, and no breach of its duty under the Access to Justice Act 1999.