Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms

Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms

Author
Discussion

Andy Zarse

10,868 posts

246 months

Wednesday 29th May 2013
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
You have perhaps missed a session or two in the Irony 101 course. Irony apart, the point seems to convey pretty well the sentiment, which appears to be prevalent on PH, that if a problem does not impact on you individually, it matters not at all.
It does impact on him though. The fool took a job, I know not what, and it means he has to pay for his own legal advice.

You might want to read his subtext a little less literally.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 29th May 2013
quotequote all
I am looking at text, not sub text, which is always rather a fraught subject. Mr Wigglebum appears to say that the fact that people less fortunate than him can't have something doesn't bother him. No doubt he can tell us what he meant, if he wishes.

There is a separate debate to be had about whether it is better for all if everyone is treated unfairly, rather than just some people.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 29th May 2013
quotequote all
Bloody lawyers....tee hee

There's a copyright problem with that Hitler thing, isn't there?

Victor McDade

4,395 posts

181 months

Wednesday 29th May 2013
quotequote all
The financial conditions for legal aid eligibility are as follows:

"To qualify for legal aid, your disposable monthly income can’t be more than £733"

or

"If you have disposable capital (savings) of over £8,000, you won’t get legal aid. Disposable capital includes:

money in the bank
valuable items
the value of your home (if you own it). This depends on how much the property is worth and how much your mortgage is".


http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_lega...

So someone who maybe works for the minimum wage and over the years has scrimped together £8000 (not really a lot in this day and age) for emergencies or to pass onto their kids is not entitled to legal aid yet they are expected, as taxpayers, to contribute for someone else to get legal aid.

As someone said above 'there is a separate debate to be had about whether it is better for all if everyone is treated unfairly' and that's true however it's easy to see why this issue hasn't really evoked a reaction amongst the masses.

Edited by Victor McDade on Thursday 30th May 00:24

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
As someone who made the mistake of getting a job i'll never get legal aid

So not bothered about it ending
A commendably PH style "the world extends no further than the confines of my house/car/family; financial weakness reflects moral weakness; I shall never encounter misfortune, and everyone else can go hang " attitude!
i am fully aware that i may encounter misfortune in my life where i will need the assistance of a lawyer

I'm also fully aware i can't afford it

I'm also fully aware that the state will refuse to help me due to me having worked


So screw those that can't be arsed to help themselves

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
OK, fair enough a part of it does effect criminal legal aid, though most of the discussion has been about changes to civil legal aid.

However, as long as the quality of advice is till there, I don't see an issue with competition on price. Lawyers have been in a cosy world for too long where the government pays your hourly rates. Many other professions have long since switched to fixed price quotes, with charge out rates being used for internal purposes.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
I'll just leave this here......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229000/Ab...

We are broke, solicitors/legal aid come way down the list of things we need to preserve in its present form, I would imagine most of the population would gladly put them on the B ark, to argue things should stay the same is not an option, that £1 million pound would have paid for a lot of cancer drugs and that's just one case, perhaps the better off barristers could do more free work if they feel so strongly about it?

singlecoil

33,313 posts

245 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
I'll just leave this here......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229000/Ab...

We are broke, solicitors/legal aid come way down the list of things we need to preserve in its present form, I would imagine most of the population would gladly put them on the B ark, to argue things should stay the same is not an option, that £1 million pound would have paid for a lot of cancer drugs and that's just one case, perhaps the better off barristers could do more free work if they feel so strongly about it?
I suspect one reason why they are so concerned about it is that their (unspoken) worry is -'what are the lawyers who will no longer be able to rely on legal aid work going to do now?'. Well, some of those unfortunate people might just go on the dole, but maybe some of them will start looking for a slice of the better off barristers' pie.


RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
RYH64E said:
plasticpig said:
Average is around £25K for a legal aid solicitor. A senior partner in a small town firm will make around £45k. The big money is in corporate stuff.
My brother-in-law is a solicitor, he's in his late forties and a partner in a small London firm who do a lot of union work. The firm is on it's arse, working on the basis that bills and staff get paid first and the partners share what's left, he often takes home less than I pay some of my production workers. His wife, my sister, earns more as a teacher.
I was on the jury of a long fraud case two years ago that involved mortgage fraud. As part of the evidence, the earnings of one of the partners in a particular firm were read out in court.

It was astonishing to see that this witness, who was a co-owner of the firm, was taking home less than £25k a year (until, that is, they turned the firm into a conveyancing conveyor belt, and his earnings shot up to a big six-figure sum).
To a certain extent I think this is an effect of the law of supply and demand. The number of kids studying law at university or college has increased enormously over the last 10 or 15 years, I'm not sure that there has been an equivalent increase in the number of people requiring their services if they go on to become qualified solicitors.

plasticpig

12,932 posts

224 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
JagLover said:
OK, fair enough a part of it does effect criminal legal aid, though most of the discussion has been about changes to civil legal aid.

However, as long as the quality of advice is till there, I don't see an issue with competition on price. Lawyers have been in a cosy world for too long where the government pays your hourly rates. Many other professions have long since switched to fixed price quotes, with charge out rates being used for internal purposes.

Very similar to accountants then which is even more of a closed shop. Companies could save a vast amount of money if they filled in their own CT600 and could self certify for audit. It would make very little difference considering the amount of qualified opinions most audits seem to have. I have acted as a litigant in person and filling in a CT600 is a piece of piss by comparison.

Anyone who is well educated and has plenty of time could probably perform a creditable job as a litigant in person. Legal aid is not aimed at such people however. It's aimed at people who are on low or no wages and have very little or no knowledge of the legal system. If I fk up a CT600 the worst that will happen is I will get a rap over the knuckles and a fine from HMRC. fk up in the Family Division of the High Court and you could lose your kids.

The second problem with a large increase in litigants in person is the courts spend far more time on such a case. Everything has to be explained to them and they may well be dealing with people who speak very little English or who are only semi literate. This is going to jam up the court system so justice will be far less swift than it is now. There is no fast track for people who have money so they will have to wait along with everyone else. It will be a far longer wait for the father who is applying for an access order to see his kids and it wont matter if he is rich or poor.






singlecoil

33,313 posts

245 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
plasticpig said:



The second problem with a large increase in litigants in person is the courts spend far more time on such a case. Everything has to be explained to them and they may well be dealing with people who speak very little English or who are only semi literate. This is going to jam up the court system so justice will be far less swift than it is now. There is no fast track for people who have money so they will have to wait along with everyone else. It will be a far longer wait for the father who is applying for an access order to see his kids and it wont matter if he is rich or poor.
This point has been made, though less eloquently, by others. However, there has to be a better solution to achieving justice than to pit two expensive lawyers against each other in a court. There have been many moves in this direction over the years, and this is where efforts should be concentrated, not in simply paying money that can no longer be afforded in legal aid.

Andy Zarse

10,868 posts

246 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
Time to apply some perspective to this debate. Today is Tax Freedom Day. If we had a Government Spending equals Tax Take Day it would fall on 13 July. So everything for the next six weeks is being stuck on the UK's credit card and our kids can pay it off for us.

I'm sorry, for all the high minded arguements, but if it comes down to spending on legal aid or paying for cancer treatment, which it does, there is only one answer...

JagLover

42,265 posts

234 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
plasticpig said:

Very similar to accountants then which is even more of a closed shop. Companies could save a vast amount of money if they filled in their own CT600 and could self certify for audit. It would make very little difference considering the amount of qualified opinions most audits seem to have. I have acted as a litigant in person and filling in a CT600 is a piece of piss by comparison.

Anyone who is well educated and has plenty of time could probably perform a creditable job as a litigant in person. Legal aid is not aimed at such people however. It's aimed at people who are on low or no wages and have very little or no knowledge of the legal system. If I fk up a CT600 the worst that will happen is I will get a rap over the knuckles and a fine from HMRC. fk up in the Family Division of the High Court and you could lose your kids.
I don't really see what value a 'self certify' option has to replace audit, as directors already have an obligation to maintain proper accounting records.

Bearing in mind the threshold for a company audit is now £6.5 million, it is not a burden on most companies. Other audits are there to provide additional surety in various areas. Whether that be for charities or proper use of client money.

I am sure that acting as a litigant in person is far less straightforward than preparing a CT600. The fees for basic CT returns in comparison to barrister fees reflect this. Far from being a 'closed shop' anyone can call themselves an Accountant and the degree of competition reflects this.

XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
Law remains one of the most popular subjects at the 6th form college whose A levels I invigilate. One wonders why if a qualified plumber earns more.

singlecoil

33,313 posts

245 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
XCP said:
Law remains one of the most popular subjects at the 6th form college whose A levels I invigilate. One wonders why if a qualified plumber earns more.
My guess is that they have hopes of getting on the gravy train, plus being a lawyer is a bit more posh.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
XCP said:
Law remains one of the most popular subjects at the 6th form college whose A levels I invigilate. One wonders why if a qualified plumber earns more.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the great British public.

As far as I'm aware, Universities discourage prospective law students from studying law at A level, they prefer to teach the subject themselves from scratch without the added complication of students picking up a bit of knowledge at school. I would advise my children to study traditional subjects at A level (Maths, Physics, English, History, etc)and specialise at University.

plasticpig

12,932 posts

224 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
Never underestimate the stupidity of the great British public.

As far as I'm aware, Universities discourage prospective law students from studying law at A level, they prefer to teach the subject themselves from scratch without the added complication of students picking up a bit of knowledge at school. I would advise my children to study traditional subjects at A level (Maths, Physics, English, History, etc)and specialise at University.
When I did A level law a lot of the universities didn't accept it as a qualification to gain a place on an LLB course.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
My guess is that they have hopes of getting on the gravy train, plus being a lawyer is a bit more posh.
I have a few friends from Uni who did law because it sounded better and yes, mummy and daddy wanted them to be lawyers. One of two of them made it but hate their jobs.

You seem to believe that the Legal Aid "Gravy Train" is what all lawyers aspire to, I don't know why this is when we repeatedly note that Legal Aid rates are poor in comparison to other work. Most people want to undertake the work that gives them lots of money...... In fact, of some of the people I trained with only one wanted to undertake legal aid work - but then her mummy and daddy were able to buy her a 400k flat in Chelsea.....


singlecoil

33,313 posts

245 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
singlecoil said:
My guess is that they have hopes of getting on the gravy train, plus being a lawyer is a bit more posh.
I have a few friends from Uni who did law because it sounded better and yes, mummy and daddy wanted them to be lawyers. One of two of them made it but hate their jobs.

You seem to believe that the Legal Aid "Gravy Train" is what all lawyers aspire to, I don't know why this is when we repeatedly note that Legal Aid rates are poor in comparison to other work. Most people want to undertake the work that gives them lots of money...... In fact, of some of the people I trained with only one wanted to undertake legal aid work - but then her mummy and daddy were able to buy her a 400k flat in Chelsea.....
You are mistaken. When I said gravy train I was in no way whatsoever referring to Legal Aid.

HTH

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 30th May 2013
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
You are mistaken. When I said gravy train I was in no way whatsoever referring to Legal Aid.

HTH
So then what is the issue with lawyers earning say 60-80k? As noted above and/or in other threads a good plumber will make more than that.....