The 2017 crime contract contains a controversial clause in the standard terms. Clause 2.2 says:
You shall ensure that neither you nor any of your Affiliates embarrasses us or otherwise brings us into disrepute by engaging in any act or omission which is reasonably likely to diminish the trust that the public places in us, regardless of whether or not such act or omission is related to your obligations under this Contract. Any operation of this Clause is subject to our obligation to act as a responsible public body and any sanction must be proportionate.
Practitioner groups and others were concerned at the chilling effect of the clause and its potential to deter legitimate criticism of the LAA given that breach may lead to contract termination. Acting for Tuckers and Ben Hoare Bell, the Public Law Project sent a letter before action threatening judicial review. PLP has announced that the LAA has responded, saying it is
prepared to consider revising Clause 2.2 and/or making a statement to provide greater clarity for legal aid providers regarding the ambit of the clause, including but not limited to the fact that as a public body the Legal Aid Agency would not seek to rely on the clause to stifle criticism of, or challenges to, the Legal Aid Agency, the Lord Chancellor, or wider government.
You can see the letter before action here and the reply here.
One response to “LAA clarifies potential use of embarrassment clause”
Reblogged this on | truthaholics.