Cost cutting + adviocate monitoring in the criminal courts
Discussion
Some of you may be interested in this:
http://legalhalfhour.blogspot.co.uk/
http://legalhalfhour.blogspot.co.uk/
blog said:
Why QASA matters to everyone. Of monkeys and peanuts.
Would you trust supermarkets with your freedom? Would you trust them to keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
When a serial killer sits in the dock would you want the person prosecuting them to have been chosen for ability or cost? If you found yourself wrongly accused would you be heartened to learn that your lawyer was chosen to maximise a profit margin?
The Criminal Bar Association think that such a future is approaching. Legal Half Hour spoke to Barrister Ian West, from Fountain Chambers, Middlesbrough, about why and how this is happening and how the CBA is trying to stop it.
Would you trust supermarkets with your freedom? Would you trust them to keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
When a serial killer sits in the dock would you want the person prosecuting them to have been chosen for ability or cost? If you found yourself wrongly accused would you be heartened to learn that your lawyer was chosen to maximise a profit margin?
The Criminal Bar Association think that such a future is approaching. Legal Half Hour spoke to Barrister Ian West, from Fountain Chambers, Middlesbrough, about why and how this is happening and how the CBA is trying to stop it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 09:04
I'm currently batting off a pack of lies through the magistrate's court. This has now cost us nearly £10,000, as I fall outside of public funding. Even more guiling, is that I'll get about a third of that back when I win, assuming I cannot prove the allegations are driven by malice. At least I have my own choice of representation, though.
Bum. Typo in thread title and unable to edit.
In the civil justice system, legal aid is being slashed, and new rules on costs seem aimed at ensuring that lawyers must do everything for a quid. A strange policy for a free marketeer Government. The City firms have been taking the piss on costs, but as usual the whole school gets caned because some posh boys broke the chapel windows.
In the civil justice system, legal aid is being slashed, and new rules on costs seem aimed at ensuring that lawyers must do everything for a quid. A strange policy for a free marketeer Government. The City firms have been taking the piss on costs, but as usual the whole school gets caned because some posh boys broke the chapel windows.
There's also a lot of movement in 'bucketshop' law firms, with a big move away from PI and family towards Clin Neg. Then you have cost budgeting and so on.
The upshot seems to be more people will be unable to afford reasonable representation. In turn we might start seeing the court gummed up with LiPs or one side seriously outgunning the other, which hardly seems in keeping.
The upshot seems to be more people will be unable to afford reasonable representation. In turn we might start seeing the court gummed up with LiPs or one side seriously outgunning the other, which hardly seems in keeping.
Yet it seems to be OK that the starting salary for a Police Officer has been reduced to £1100/month and they have to pay for their own training. Police Forces have been decimated because 'there's no money left'.
We have a Government that knows the cost if everything and the value of nothing.
We have a Government that knows the cost if everything and the value of nothing.
The usual snobbery from the independent bar is unfortunate, this time its prejudiced comments on supermarkets is not helpful to their case.
The way in which barristers are funded is not the problem. The problem is QASA. The experience of both the prosecution and defence counsel should be commensurate with the seriousness and complexity of the case.
In one sense it matters not if counsel is inexperienced so long as both sides are equally inexperienced. On the other hand a court is less likely to make mistakes when it has the benefit of more experienced counsel and the purpose of adversarial trials is a rigorous examination of the evidence which less experienced counsel might struggle with.
The way in which barristers are funded is not the problem. The problem is QASA. The experience of both the prosecution and defence counsel should be commensurate with the seriousness and complexity of the case.
In one sense it matters not if counsel is inexperienced so long as both sides are equally inexperienced. On the other hand a court is less likely to make mistakes when it has the benefit of more experienced counsel and the purpose of adversarial trials is a rigorous examination of the evidence which less experienced counsel might struggle with.
Breadvan72 said:
OK, well, that's one side of the argument, put in, shall we say, a rather emotive manner. For fairness, we should now read the other side of the argument.I remember the last time I consulted a solicitor, his fees were c. £120 per hour. That was about twenty years ago. Seems to me there is some scope for looking at the fees the legal profession charges, especially if I am having to pay a proportion of them through the Legal Aid system.
Elroy Blue said:
Yet it seems to be OK that the starting salary for a Police Officer has been reduced to £1100/month and they have to pay for their own training. Police Forces have been decimated because 'there's no money left'.
We have a Government that knows the cost if everything and the value of nothing.
We have a government that knows the cost and the value of votes.We have a Government that knows the cost if everything and the value of nothing.
Hence cutting things they think they can get away with while not touching universal benefits to pensioners, who are the age group most likely to vote.
I don't know enough about the subject of the OP to really comment, although I would say that there is a general belief amongst many that the legal system is there for the benefit of those well off enough to be able to afford it, reducing legal aid etc just makes this more so, IMHO.
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
OK, well, that's one side of the argument, put in, shall we say, a rather emotive manner. For fairness, we should now read the other side of the argument.I remember the last time I consulted a solicitor, his fees were c. £120 per hour. That was about twenty years ago. Seems to me there is some scope for looking at the fees the legal profession charges, especially if I am having to pay a proportion of them through the Legal Aid system.
PS: you did know that the solicitor didn't get to keep the whole 120, didn't you?
Breadvan72 said:
What is wrong with £120 an hour? Out of that comes rent, heat, light, books, computers, staff, regulatory costs, insurance, training costs, office supplies, cleaning, etc. Then tax. Is that such an unreasonable rate for a trained postgraduate professional?
I put it to you that many other professions can make a profit out of a great deal less.RH
No doubt, but show me a breakdown of their costs and compare those with the costs of a law firm. Also, what is wrong with people who have trained hard making a decent market based profit from the sale of their skills? I do not begrudge paying a skilled mechanic £60 an hour to fix my car. I do not begrudge paying my doctor £120 an hour. I do not begrudge paying my plumber £80 an hour. What is this thing about people having to work for buttons?
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
OK, well, that's one side of the argument, put in, shall we say, a rather emotive manner. For fairness, we should now read the other side of the argument.I remember the last time I consulted a solicitor, his fees were c. £120 per hour. That was about twenty years ago. Seems to me there is some scope for looking at the fees the legal profession charges, especially if I am having to pay a proportion of them through the Legal Aid system.
PS: you did know that the solicitor didn't get to keep the whole 120, didn't you?
You did get that that was 20 years ago? What's the average for a Surrey solicitor now?
The point I am making is that where some people are charging the modern equivalent of this kind of money, there is scope for less greedy individual and companies to enter the market. If it turns out that their services have less worth, then I daresay the market will reflect that.
RH, did you miss the bits about regulatory costs, training costs, indemnity insurance, law books, staff costs etc? None of those are cheap. Look up the cost of some practitioner law books and online subscriptions services, average indemnity insurance bills, the cost of obtaining compulsory continuing training at conferences and seminars, and the average salaries of qualified legal secretaries.
I said at the outset that some of the big firms have been taking the Mickey on fees, and their billing practices can be quite outrageous, but the Gov isn't really aiming at them.
BTW, I still get 120 an hour before expenses and tax when I act for Brenda. Private sector clients pay more.
I said at the outset that some of the big firms have been taking the Mickey on fees, and their billing practices can be quite outrageous, but the Gov isn't really aiming at them.
BTW, I still get 120 an hour before expenses and tax when I act for Brenda. Private sector clients pay more.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 10:17
Rovinghawk said:
I would still suggest that your perception of reasonable reward for labour is higher than that of those in other professions.
RH
I agree, but why should it not be, if selling a specialised skill after years of training? We are cheap compared to bankers, and we arguably work harder than they do, and sometimes add value to a transaction, or change a life for the better, or, of course, for the worse. RH
Breadvan72 said:
Why should it not be, if selling a specialised skill after years of training? We are cheap compared to bankers, and we arguably work harder than they do and sometimnes add value to a transaction or change a life for the better, or, of course, for the worse.
I also work in a skilled profession needing training & resources. I agree the concept of with reward commensurate with effort & skill but still suggest that the legal profession presumes a higher reward than many others would consider fair.RH
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff