Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
When done badly, the solicitor/barrister split adds to costs. When done properly, it reduces costs, and provides a service for the client which is more efficient overall. Barristers can be cost effective because they may agree a set fee for a job regardless of time taken to do it. Even when charging by the hour (and, as always, the hourly rate is a gross rate, from which come expenses and tax), a barrister may need less time to prepare something that is within his or her field of expertise, or may have more time to sit and think over novel or difficult problems. In addition, the barrister can and should can bring detached judgment to a case. Sometimes a solicitor can find him or herself so beset by the client, especially a repeat client, or so buried in the detail of a case, that he or she, and the client, will benefit from an opinion from someone who can stand back and provide an overview. This is not to say that solicitors lack judgment, or expertise, as many of them have both in spades, but they work under pressures that are not quite the same as those faced by barristers.
Advocacy is time consuming, and is a use it or lose it skill that requires regular practice. When a solicitor goes to court the emails and phone calls pile up unanswered. Solicitors have been able to practise as advocates in all courts for years, if they wish, but relatively few have chosen to do so, and in most cases it is cheaper for the client for the solicitor to send the higher court advocacy work to a barrister.
As noted above, any honest lawyer, and there are many such, does not bill all of the time spent on a file.
There are some very questionable billing practices amongst the megafirms at the top of the market, and privately funded litigation costs have become excessive, but the current debate is about the firms that scratch a living at the bottom of the market, often providing an essential service for people who are not able to represent themselves effectively.
Advocacy is time consuming, and is a use it or lose it skill that requires regular practice. When a solicitor goes to court the emails and phone calls pile up unanswered. Solicitors have been able to practise as advocates in all courts for years, if they wish, but relatively few have chosen to do so, and in most cases it is cheaper for the client for the solicitor to send the higher court advocacy work to a barrister.
As noted above, any honest lawyer, and there are many such, does not bill all of the time spent on a file.
There are some very questionable billing practices amongst the megafirms at the top of the market, and privately funded litigation costs have become excessive, but the current debate is about the firms that scratch a living at the bottom of the market, often providing an essential service for people who are not able to represent themselves effectively.
Re: barristers' chambers. The overheads nowadays run to about 25 to 30 percent. I pay 15 per cent of my gross turnover to my chambers and this covers the building, utilities, increasingly numerous staff, pupil training, recruitment, IT support, marketing, and so on. Another 10 to 20 per cent goes on professional insurance, subscriptions, books, computers, and travel. I pay tax and NI on the remainder and keep what's left. Increasingly, chambers are organised along the lines of firms, with a collective brand and marketing effort, but we are not partners, have no internal hierarchy, and retain the eat what you kill approach to financing the organisation. We elect a committee to run the place, and make big decisions such as taking on new members at full chambers meetings.
In theory, any professional service business can operate from home or from a shed on a ring road, but so far virtual chambers and hot desking chambers in serviced offices have not been very successful. Barristers' chambers tend to be located near the main court centre in any given city that has a local Bar, and about two thirds of the practising Bar is still based in London. My chambers tends to have upmarket clients, so we have an upmarket building with posh conference rooms and the like, although nothing like as posh as those of the biggest firms that instruct us. When a client hires one of us, it is hiring the individual, not the organisation, and the work is done personally and not farmed out to staff.
In an economist's terms, we are a firm, but legally we remain a group of traders who share costs and join together to create a brand. Some of my work comes to me by name, and some comes to the chambers by reputation, and is farmed out by the clerks, who occupy a role not unlike that of a pimp. They are no longer paid a share of the take, however - we took control of the business from our clerks many years ago. We employ a solicitor as our Chambers Director, and also employ specialist marketing people, IT people, a librarian, etc. We club together to pay our pupils about 60K a year, which is the going rate if we are to compete with other big chambers and the big law firms.
We are not dependent on legal aid, but even the most crusty Tory amongst the old silks in chambers agrees that the current legal aid proposals are likely to prove disastrous to the interests of justice and damaging to a sector of the economy.
My sector of the legal market contributes a shedload of tax to the coffers, employs a lot of support staff and related businesses such as document exchange and storage companies, and generates a lot of invisible exports, as London remains a centre for international dispute resolution. This is because UK courts and UK lawyers are regarded as reliable and efficient by international legal customers. Clogging up those courts with unadvised litigants in person may have some negative impact on international legalbiz, but that's not why I object to the proposals.
In theory, any professional service business can operate from home or from a shed on a ring road, but so far virtual chambers and hot desking chambers in serviced offices have not been very successful. Barristers' chambers tend to be located near the main court centre in any given city that has a local Bar, and about two thirds of the practising Bar is still based in London. My chambers tends to have upmarket clients, so we have an upmarket building with posh conference rooms and the like, although nothing like as posh as those of the biggest firms that instruct us. When a client hires one of us, it is hiring the individual, not the organisation, and the work is done personally and not farmed out to staff.
In an economist's terms, we are a firm, but legally we remain a group of traders who share costs and join together to create a brand. Some of my work comes to me by name, and some comes to the chambers by reputation, and is farmed out by the clerks, who occupy a role not unlike that of a pimp. They are no longer paid a share of the take, however - we took control of the business from our clerks many years ago. We employ a solicitor as our Chambers Director, and also employ specialist marketing people, IT people, a librarian, etc. We club together to pay our pupils about 60K a year, which is the going rate if we are to compete with other big chambers and the big law firms.
We are not dependent on legal aid, but even the most crusty Tory amongst the old silks in chambers agrees that the current legal aid proposals are likely to prove disastrous to the interests of justice and damaging to a sector of the economy.
My sector of the legal market contributes a shedload of tax to the coffers, employs a lot of support staff and related businesses such as document exchange and storage companies, and generates a lot of invisible exports, as London remains a centre for international dispute resolution. This is because UK courts and UK lawyers are regarded as reliable and efficient by international legal customers. Clogging up those courts with unadvised litigants in person may have some negative impact on international legalbiz, but that's not why I object to the proposals.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 13th June 12:16
Here is the sort of case for which good quality criminal legal aid lawyers are required, but, heck, some here will probably say "these brats weren't even British, so why should we care?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22999230
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22999230
johnfm said:
Pat H said:
Breadvan72 said:
We club together to pay our pupils about 60K a year, which is the going rate if we are to compete with other big chambers and the big law firms...
Jesus.Bit bloody different from the unfunded pupillage that I did in Leicester about twenty years ago.
And I had a degree from Oxford to tout about.
It is obviously a completely different world from the grubby magistrates courts of the north of England.
The new tenants usually earn less in their first year of practice than they did in their pupillage year. Thereafter they tend to go on to top £100,000 gross fairly quickly (call that roughly 45 to 50K net after expenses and tax), but we are lucky in being at the top end of the market.
I did my pupillage in 1986-7 with a scholarship from the Inn worth £2000, a pupillage award from chambers of £2000 (that was a big award back then), and some minor grants from City Livery Company bequests (these are worth looking up). I did some law teaching (I still do) and worked in a bar to make up the rest (nowadays I sit in bars not working and am very fussy about Martini making), as already by the mid 80s a year in London cost a lot more than £4000, and I had an overdraft from the two years of unfunded post graduate training that preceded the pupillage year. I have never got rid of the overdraft, as I get paid 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 months after I do a case, depending on the whim of the client, and chasing clients for money is like herding cats. Still, it almost all comes in eventually, and it's not so bad really.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 21st June 12:53
The petition against the proposed changes has now obtained over 100,000 signatures, and therefore there will be a debate on the proposals in Parliament. The Government has signalled a concession on client choice:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23132233
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23132233
The Government appears to be doing a U Turn on the "give the contract to whoever is cheapest" plan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23967908
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23967908
If you are suggesting that the governmemnt is dominated by lawyers, it isn't - look at the numbers. Ditto Parliament. The proposal was to place price before quality, and deprive people of choice of representative. There's now been quite a significant retreat by the government from a policy that would have damaged the administration of justice.
That raises two issues. The first is that lawyers have become too expensive. I say that as a lawyer. I think that in general many of us charge too much for privately paid work (the rates for public sector work are much lower, and for legal aid work hardly enough to make a profit in many cases). The high rates charged for private sector work aren't just based on being greedy. They partly reflect increased complexity of the law, increased trading costs, and increased insurance risks, but there is still some undue fee ramping.
The second issue is that over several years the availability of legal aid has been eroded so that it now only extends to those on very low incomes, whereas in the past people on modest incomes might qualify for some assistance. That's a matter of government policy. There is an argument that, just as healthcare is too important and too inherently expensive to be left to market forces, so too there is a need for a form of national legal service, but this argument has not found favour with successive governments.
The second issue is that over several years the availability of legal aid has been eroded so that it now only extends to those on very low incomes, whereas in the past people on modest incomes might qualify for some assistance. That's a matter of government policy. There is an argument that, just as healthcare is too important and too inherently expensive to be left to market forces, so too there is a need for a form of national legal service, but this argument has not found favour with successive governments.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th September 08:48
I get 120 an hour from central Government - a rate that has been fixed for years. That is of course a gross rate, before payment of business expenses and tax - it doesn't equate to take home pay. Commercial gross rates tend to be about three to four times higher than that.
Legal aid rates are much lower, to the extent that it has become economically unviable to run a legal aid practice in many sectors.
I add that the public policy argument about legal aid isn't mainly about lawyer pay, but rather about the quality of the justice system. It's also important to note that eligibility for criminal legal aid is much wider than for civil legal aid, partly because the cost of means testiing in criminal cases would outweigh the savings.
Legal aid rates are much lower, to the extent that it has become economically unviable to run a legal aid practice in many sectors.
I add that the public policy argument about legal aid isn't mainly about lawyer pay, but rather about the quality of the justice system. It's also important to note that eligibility for criminal legal aid is much wider than for civil legal aid, partly because the cost of means testiing in criminal cases would outweigh the savings.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 6th September 08:57
You are subscribing to a popular myth that lawyers get rich on legal aid. The average legal aid lawyer earns about 30,000 a year, maybe 60,000 if lucky. Not poverty, but not riches either.
Legal aid isn't just for crims, it's also for people such as victims of domestic violence, unlawful eviction, and other social ills. As for the crims, the system quickly breaks down if they aren't represented.
Legal aid isn't just for crims, it's also for people such as victims of domestic violence, unlawful eviction, and other social ills. As for the crims, the system quickly breaks down if they aren't represented.
As usual, a lot is wasted on admin, as the Legal Services Commission is a very inefficient organisation. The costs also reflect the fact that we have a more usable legal system than most continental countries. It is no accident that Ireland is the other EU leading spender on legal aid, as it is the only other EU member state with a common law legal system that accentuates civil liberties above state powers.
The legal system here is far from perfect, but try comparing it with the systems in, for example, France or Italy and it comes out pretty well. This is why London is an international legal centre producing millions in invisible exports, but Paris and Rome aren't.
The legal system here is far from perfect, but try comparing it with the systems in, for example, France or Italy and it comes out pretty well. This is why London is an international legal centre producing millions in invisible exports, but Paris and Rome aren't.
I agree that there is far too much legislation, and that much of it is poorly drafted. This probably has the greatest effect on fields such as planning, immigration, tax, and public law in general. Governments aren't the only ones to blame, however. There is in many fields of human activity a tendency to over complicate things, and this is true of the law, as quite a few lawyers, and their clients, take refuge in making things more complicated than they need to be. Some may do this on purpose, but many probably do it because of a defensive inability to see that simple is usually best.
Derek Smith said:
Two things: how many had law degrees, and what is the percentage of lawyers in the general public?
Less than 0.5% of the population are lawyers, so the proportion in the House of Commons is at least 30 times the norm, and probably a lot higher than that.Sadly, the number of lawyers in the Country is also growing, in proportion, significantly faster than the population, so things can only get worse.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff