Review of 48-strong Govt legal panel pushed back by 11 months
The Government has pushed back a closely watched review of the panel set up to centralise Whitehall's legal spending for almost a year, it has emerged. Office of Government Commerce agency Buying Solutions has confirmed that the review of its 48-strong legal panel – formerly known as Catalist – has been delayed by 11 months after it originally kicked off in September last year.
June 22, 2011 at 07:03 PM
2 minute read
The Government has pushed back a closely watched review of the panel set up to centralise Whitehall's legal spending for almost a year, it has emerged.
Office of Government Commerce agency Buying Solutions has confirmed that the review of its 48-strong legal panel – formerly known as Catalist – has been delayed by 11 months after it originally kicked off in September last year.
The review, launched in an effort to cut both legal spend and the number of law firms the Government instructs, has not yet gone to tender, despite a request for proposals originally being expected to go out in January.
A team of procurement officers – led by Buying Solutions chief executive Alison Littley and corporate services director David Murray – are currently assessing what to expect from advisers in terms of fee arrangements and other value-added services.
Firms currently on the panel include Allen & Overy, Linklaters, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith, DLA Piper, Eversheds and Norton Rose.
A Buying Solutions spokeswoman commented: "The current framework agreement has been extended with all 48 suppliers for a period of 11 months, during which time the project in respect of the replacement arrangements is taking place with Efficiency and Reform Group and Government Legal Service and is still at an early stage."
Partners at firms on the panel have voiced complaints that work is not handed out evenly, with Legal Week research earlier this year showing that while 15 of the 48 firms on the panel have billed more than £1m in fees over the last three years, 12 have billed less than £40,000 and seven billed for no work at all during 2009-10.
One adviser commented: "Government legal procurement needs a major makeover, and many doubt whether this review is likely to provide that."
This content has been archived.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 AllICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
3 minute readLawyers Among Those Convicted as Hong Kong High Court Sentences 45 Activists to Prison
Clifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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