Is the Legal Aid Board's flag-bearing, area number one office not a happy ship? I ask this question because, as readers may recall, there are rumours of all sorts of comings and goings (mainly the latter) in Red Lion Street.
Chief target is the gossip that failure to reach performance targets is a disciplinary offence, which the LAB has denied.
Strange, then, that Tulkinghorn hears of an area one lawyer presently being disciplined by the LAB for, you've guessed it, 'underperformance'. She's appealing the charge. Perhaps she should use the grounds that the 'offence' does not exist.
However, the LAB concedes that if somebody 'continually' underperforms they could be subject to disciplinary action.
What's the difference between underperformance and continual underperformance, one could ask?