Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
singlecoil said:
10 Pence Short said:
singlecoil said:
My best guess is that one element at least of the justice system over here is simply too expensive, and that's the lawyers. I was reading a judgement in an immigration appeal yesterday, and one side has a QC AND a junior, and so, of course, does the other. That must have cost a pretty penny.
It may be that the case merited the level of representation.Perhaps you could link us to the "judgement" (sic)?
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/j...
Pat H said:
It really isn't worth getting terribly excited about, but in English Law Judgment only has the one "e"...
Well, I'm not actually a lawyer, so I exercised my judgement, or, as they say in America, it was a judgement call.Oxford English Dictionary said:
In British English the normal spelling in general contexts is judgement. However, the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts
Pat H said:
RYH64E said:
10 Pence Short said:
Most solicitors do not have what are called 'rights of audience' in the Crown Court so are not allowed to advocate for their client. That's why specialist advocates, barristers, are used there.
why can't a solicitor fulfil both roles in anything but the most complex cases?I have higher rights of audience, which means that I can do the police station attendance, any hearings in the magistrates court, then deal with the Crown Court advocacy if the case gets booted upstairs.
I used counsel for the Crown Court trials simply because I never had time to do everything.
These days, most provincial criminal practices have at least one solicitor advocate. No idea what happens in London.
In a stroke the cost of many crown court cases would be reduced - no reduction in access to legal representation would be required, yet I've just saved the taxpayer money.
Look at the legal team for each side in a crown court case - Barrister, Junior and a solicitor for each side who all require paying, in a Crown vs Legal Aid Defendant case, the taxpayer picks up the bills for 6 or more people - is that really necessary?
Why do Barristers still rely on clerks to do their admin when those of us in broadly equivalent managerial roles in the rest of the working world now do most of our scheduling and appointment booking electronically. Then there's the situation of renting a room, how much does that cost a barrister in London, the cost being passed on to the client? It seems the whole set up is created to employ as many people as possible in the most inefficient manner.
To this non-legal outsider, it seems the legal profession is in uproar about the loss of access to legal representation while doing little to help matters in the way it operates and the costs that way of operating incurs.
Mark Benson said:
Pat H said:
RYH64E said:
10 Pence Short said:
Most solicitors do not have what are called 'rights of audience' in the Crown Court so are not allowed to advocate for their client. That's why specialist advocates, barristers, are used there.
why can't a solicitor fulfil both roles in anything but the most complex cases?I have higher rights of audience, which means that I can do the police station attendance, any hearings in the magistrates court, then deal with the Crown Court advocacy if the case gets booted upstairs.
I used counsel for the Crown Court trials simply because I never had time to do everything.
These days, most provincial criminal practices have at least one solicitor advocate. No idea what happens in London.
In a stroke the cost of many crown court cases would be reduced - no reduction in access to legal representation would be required, yet I've just saved the taxpayer money.
Look at the legal team for each side in a crown court case - Barrister, Junior and a solicitor for each side who all require paying, in a Crown vs Legal Aid Defendant case, the taxpayer picks up the bills for 6 or more people - is that really necessary?
Why do Barristers still rely on clerks to do their admin when those of us in broadly equivalent managerial roles in the rest of the working world now do most of our scheduling and appointment booking electronically. Then there's the situation of renting a room, how much does that cost a barrister in London, the cost being passed on to the client? It seems the whole set up is created to employ as many people as possible in the most inefficient manner.
To this non-legal outsider, it seems the legal profession is in uproar about the loss of access to legal representation while doing little to help matters in the way it operates and the costs that way of operating incurs.
It would have been a great post, were it not for the ignorance of how barristers and solcitors work.
A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
10 Pence Short said:
It would have been a great post, were it not for the ignorance of how barristers and solcitors work.
A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
Speaking as a customer, it seems unnecessary to double up the costs by having a solicitor and barrister present in meetings and at court. Maybe certain cases warrant the extra costs, but I'm sure that many cases could be handled by a solicitor.A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
I'm sure there are many cases solicitors could handle with higher rights of audience.
Solicitors are not always cheaper than barristers though, and they will still usually need supporting in court.
Not all good solicitors will want to advocate, either.
A GP might refer you to a consultant to operate on you. Assuming he was even willing, you probably wouldn't want your GP doing the operation to save costs.
Solicitors are not always cheaper than barristers though, and they will still usually need supporting in court.
Not all good solicitors will want to advocate, either.
A GP might refer you to a consultant to operate on you. Assuming he was even willing, you probably wouldn't want your GP doing the operation to save costs.
singlecoil said:
My best guess is that one element at least of the justice system over here is simply too expensive, and that's the lawyers. I was reading a judgement in an immigration appeal yesterday, and one side has a QC AND a junior, and so, of course, does the other. That must have cost a pretty penny.
That would explain the "twice as expensive as our nearest competitor bit" I suppose.10 Pence Short said:
A GP might refer you to a consultant to operate on you. Assuming he was even willing, you probably wouldn't want your GP doing the operation to save costs.
Maybe not, but the GP doesn't usually join the consultant during the operation. I don't know if it's standard practice, but my limited experience has been for both barrister and solicitor to be present in the lead up to, and during court. The barrister may not cost much more than the solicitor (about £250 + VAT per hour each for me), but when they're both working on essentially the same stuff the effective hourly rate doubles.
As I said earlier, I'm not expert in the subject but have had to pay some pretty substantial bills for relatively mundane stuff relating to employment law issues. When you have to pay the costs yourself it certainly concentrates the mind, something legal aid recipients don't consider.
singlecoil said:
I must admit I am impressed (but not in a good way) by JohnFM's ability to carry a grudge. I nailed his head to the coffee table on a thread, it must have been a couple of years ago or maybe more, and every now and then he will enter a thread for the sole purpose of having a go at me. Usually I ignore him, but thought I had better explain why he is stalking me.
AhahaYes, of course you did.
All you need to do is dig up the thread where your fantasy occurred and you may be able to salvage a shred of credibility.
RYH64E said:
When you have to pay the costs yourself it certainly concentrates the mind, something legal aid recipients don't consider.
I've just shelled out £7000 for solicitor and 'senior junior' barrister to defend an allegation that didn't even make a full trial. My OH is a commercial lawyer whose take home (when not off having babies) is about 4 times that of an average criminal solicitor. Lawyers cost money, more so when they get specialised, but they are better value for money than not being represented or being represented badly.RYH64E said:
10 Pence Short said:
A GP might refer you to a consultant to operate on you. Assuming he was even willing, you probably wouldn't want your GP doing the operation to save costs.
Maybe not, but the GP doesn't usually join the consultant during the operation. I don't know if it's standard practice, but my limited experience has been for both barrister and solicitor to be present in the lead up to, and during court. The barrister may not cost much more than the solicitor (about £250 + VAT per hour each for me), but when they're both working on essentially the same stuff the effective hourly rate doubles.
As I said earlier, I'm not expert in the subject but have had to pay some pretty substantial bills for relatively mundane stuff relating to employment law issues. When you have to pay the costs yourself it certainly concentrates the mind, something legal aid recipients don't consider.
2. The law encompasses an incredible broad spectrum. Barristers exist to cater for very very thin wedges of expertise. Solicitors don't. A solicitor may, for example, be a commercial litigator and be instructed on, say, contractual disputes. One such dispute may be an interest rate swaps case - needing a barrister with specific experience in that narrow field of financial litigation acting for (or against) banks to determine if there is a case (or a defence as the case may be). Same solicitor may have a contract dispute involving, say, a construction matter. Here a barrister with specific construction experience would advise, draft the claim or defense and, if it went to court, argue the case.
As you can imagine, there are quite a number of legal specialties, hence the need for specialists.
I think the adversarial nature of litigation has a lot to answer for and in itself probably adds a lot to the costs of cases.
Breadvan72 said:
A topical Downfall mashup. This one is quite good, and pretty much spot on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPTaFRZSzI4&fea...
Wheels finally came off the gravy train....about time to.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPTaFRZSzI4&fea...
10 Pence Short said:
It would have been a great post, were it not for the ignorance of how barristers and solcitors work.
A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
I'm not ignorant of how solicitors and barristers work, I thought that was clear from my post. Your answer only states "this is the way it works", my question was "why does it have to be this way?". You do not answer the question I asked.A solicitor typically carries far more overhead than a barrister, not to mention they're often different roles.
Some solicitors may be happy being an advocate in Crown Court, many will not. If they wanted to have been advocates in the main, they would typically have gone to the bar, instead.
What I was asking was
a) Why do they both (solicitor and barrister plus a junior in many cases) need to be there at the same time and;
b) Why do they continue to operate in a way that in every other walk of life was left behind decades ago (clerks, renting a room at Inns etc.)?
Simple questions I'd have thought, yet no-one seems able to answer them.
For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.
Edited by Mark Benson on Tuesday 11th June 08:34
Edited by Mark Benson on Tuesday 11th June 08:36
Mark Benson said:
For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.
Pretty much the same point I've been trying to make. I'm sure that there are some cases where a specialist barrister is invaluable, I'm equally sure that there are many more where they're an unnecessary added cost, making an already expensive process even more costly.
Mark Benson said:
For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.
I'll be interested to see what the lawyers and their resident fanboys come up with on that one. My own response (as a non-lawyer) is to take the question as rhetorical, in other words the answer is obvious and not flattering to the legal profession.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff