find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
Govt legal panel process “a sham”

Govt legal panel process “a sham”

[UPDATED] One small firm that tendered for the Victorian Government's legal panel has disputed claims that the process was "a sham".Guild Lawyers, which has a team of 12, including two partners,…

[UPDATED] One small firm that tendered for the Victorian Government's legal panel has disputed claims that the process was "a sham".

Guild Lawyers, which has a team of 12, including two partners, four lawyers and two paralegals, was recently appointed to the panel, principal Kellie Dell'Oro told Lawyers Weekly.

"We are a small firm and there was a clear commitment by the government to appoint small firms to the extent to which larger firms were not able to nominate themselves for more than two specialist panels," she said.

"We were appointed because we were able to demonstrate the expertise and the capacity to meet the government's expectations."

Anger was expressed on Crikey via anonymous posts from small- to medium-sized law firms, which complained about the tender and appointment process for the panel.

Comments said that small to medium firms had put in bids on the basis that the government wanted smaller firms on the panel.

"Tens of thousands of dollars later - we don't have marketing staff for a tender of this size - and hundreds of hours working through the crap system for lodging tenders we find the whole thing was a sham," an anonymous post said. "The same firms that were there before are there now! And guess what...

"No small law firms, except for some in very specialised areas worth no money, made the grade. Instead we are fed again on a diet of legal services costing up to 50 per cent more than it needs to ... well done."

Dell'Oro agreed that an incredibly comprehensive and detailed response was required for the tender, which took an enormous amount of hours but said it was "only fair that they set the bar in that way".

She also disagreed with the blogger's claim that small firms were only appointed to "very specialised areas worth no money", noting that specialist panels, such as the coronial inquests panel, have the potential to account for legal fees in excess of $1 million dollars.

When approached by Lawyers Weekly, the Victorian Department of Justice denied the allegations and said the panel was made up of all levels of law firms, including small- and medium-sized firms which had tendered.

"All firms that tendered for the panel were evaluated on their responses to the tender specifications, including their capacity to deliver the legal service, their legal expertise and on overall value for money. The tender for the panel arrangements provided for cost-competitive fee rates for the government," the spokesperson said.

"A probity advisor appointed to oversee the process has ensured that the evaluation of tenders was fair and transparent. Each recommendation to appoint a firm to the panel was made on a coherent and even-handed basis."

The spokesperson added that regional firms had benefited from the Regional Sourcing Policy, which allows the Government to source legal services from rural and regional firms if the matter relates to a specific region. The expected cost is less than $25,000, the spokesperson said, and a regional firm can offer same or better value for money

- Sarah Sharples

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Govt legal panel process “a sham”
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...