Regional development agencies early victims of public spending cuts
Sweeping curbs on public spending are set to have an early impact on the legal sector, with the Government this week announcing deep cuts in regional development agencies (RDAs) as part of an initial £6.2bn round of cuts. England's nine RDAs will lose £270m this year - roughly 20% of their budget.
May 26, 2010 at 04:28 AM
4 minute read
Questions over future of RDAs and Catalist as spending cuts hit
Sweeping curbs on public spending are set to have an early impact on the legal sector, with the Government this week announcing deep cuts in regional development agencies (RDAs) as part of an initial £6.2bn round of cuts.
England's nine RDAs will lose £270m this year – roughly 20% of their budget.
The bodies are considered important clients in many regional markets. However, RDAs, which are known to have little support in the current Government, are also seen as vulnerable when further cost-cutting measures are imposed.
The RDA Advantage West Midlands this month confirmed five firms to its new legal panel: Brown Jacobson, Eversheds, Hammonds, Mills & Reeve and Walker Morris, while RDA Yorkshire Forward recently appointed Walker Morris, Eversheds, Hammonds, Addleshaw Goddard, Pinsent Masons and Cobbetts. East of England Development Agency is set to announce the result of its panel review shortly.
Eversheds relationship partner for Northwest Regional Development Agency Paul Hothi (pictured) said: "Legal spend will certainly be hit but given the economy we have had for the last two and a half years, we have had to get used to this. We have had to be very innovative with our pricing to get onto these panels in the first place."
The confirmation of public spending cuts, which were announced on Monday (24 May) by the Conservative Liberal coalition Government, have also turned attention to Whitehall's procurement of legal services.
The Government's procurement panel, Catalist, is likely to come under renewed pressure both to cut legal spend and to more effectively centralise legal buying. The body has faced mounting criticism from law firms in recent years for excessive bureaucracy, low rates and failing to deliver on work volumes as many public bodies fail to use the panel.
Despite 48 firms winning places on the much-touted panel, the majority of firms see little work from it, with several major Government departments, including the National Audit Office (NAO) and Ministry of Defence, operating separate advisory panels.
Last month the Department for Work and Pensions became the latest Government body to turn away from Catalist, appointing Field Fisher Waterhouse as its sole preferred adviser, though the firm is a Catalist-approved adviser. Ironically, a report published last week by the NAO criticised public bodies for wasting money by failing to pool their buying power.
DLA Piper partner Richard Bonnar said: "In the short term there could be negative consequences [because of the cuts]. Demand for Catalist is only likely to increase if a mandate is sent out from central Government to use the panel."
Field Fisher partner Michael Chissick commented: "Good value is about offering top quality expertise, not just good rates and given Government 's need to push down public spending Catalist will certainly offer the best value in those terms. Given the current climate, I would expect the use of Catalist to increase."
The DWP will see its budget cut by £535m as part of this week's announced cuts, while other cuts include a £325m reduction at the Ministry of Justice.
Renewed expectations of a tough squeeze on government spending has also led to predictions that many commercial law firms will abandon public work entirely unless they can secure substantial work volumes to compensate for low rates.
Simmons & Simmons projects partner Richard Dyton commented: "In the short term public sector work will be challenging because it will be subject to cancellation or freeze. However in the medium term it makes sense to pursue it because the UK needs infrastructure and even if you spread the cost over a longer period you still have to pay."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells & 10 Top Stories That Shaped Africa in 2024
4 minute readBorden Ladner Gervais Cyber Expert Warns of Growing Threats From AI-Boosted Ransomware Attacks
3 minute readBaker & Partners, LCWP Lead on $1B Fraud Claim by Malaysia's 1MDB Against Amicorp
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250