Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
singlecoil said:
Walter Sobchak said:
I thought Junior Criminal Barristers get paid peanuts, and that's for those who manage to get an apprenticeship(I've forgotten what it's actually called) at the end of their eye wateringly expensive Degree and post grad training.
I'm sure it's a fascinating job but it's got to be truly vocational with the amount they get paid and the hours they work.
Anyone seen my rosin? I need to play a sad tune.I'm sure it's a fascinating job but it's got to be truly vocational with the amount they get paid and the hours they work.
Wasn't he?
I did my pupillage in the 1980s and there was no ritual at the dinners. They were pointless, but you just got through them and then went to the pub. I haven't dined in hall since then. Pupillage was rather unstructured, varying in quality depending on who was training you. I funded mine through scholarships from the Inn, a small grant from my chambers, and part time jobs.
Nowadays pupillage is a structured training process, and the pupils are paid at a level commensurate with trainee solicitors, and given continued training and mentoring after they start in practice.
Access to the profession was opened up in recent decades, and plenty of oiks like me got in, but I think it is now closing up again because of the costs of degrees and of postgraduate training, which make the Bank of Mum and Dad important. The financial rewards in commercial practice are still good, but I agree that you'd need a vocation to practise in crime, family, immigration or housing.
Nowadays pupillage is a structured training process, and the pupils are paid at a level commensurate with trainee solicitors, and given continued training and mentoring after they start in practice.
Access to the profession was opened up in recent decades, and plenty of oiks like me got in, but I think it is now closing up again because of the costs of degrees and of postgraduate training, which make the Bank of Mum and Dad important. The financial rewards in commercial practice are still good, but I agree that you'd need a vocation to practise in crime, family, immigration or housing.
I suspect Pat H may have been at Gray's Inn, which reputedly retains silly old rituals. At Middle Temple, the only real ritual was avoiding eating the vile potato croquets, the food at the student dinners being generally rubbish (it's much better at lunch, with Inner Temple having the best kitchen overall).
Not many barristers practising criminal law on legal aid have lavish London lifestyles. The rates are low and getting lower. You may be thinking of us lot in the civil litigation world, who are paid almost entirely by private sector clients, and do OK for the most part. We aren't on strike, but most of us sympathise with the legal aid Bar's campaign against the current changes, which are not merely tackling inefficiency but risking access to justice. I don't do legal aid cases, but am still owed money from when I last did, over ten years ago, when there was a bit more civil legal aid than there is now. That's the system, and slow payment added to low rates makes the work a bit marginal.
Many people become lawyers for cash alone, but not all. I became a barrister because I wanted to make a difference. I was seduced by cash later, and like money as much as anyone, but I still do a fair chunk of pro bono work. I am not unusual in this. I know some lawyers who work vocationally for peanuts. I admire them, but it's not for me.
I agree that there are too many lawyers in the UK, but in legal aid work there is not a real market. By contrast, in private sector work, there is a real market, and this has produced rates which, to my mind, are too high. Us lot at the upper end of the profession are often overpaid. The people at the bottom are often underpaid.
I agree that there are too many lawyers in the UK, but in legal aid work there is not a real market. By contrast, in private sector work, there is a real market, and this has produced rates which, to my mind, are too high. Us lot at the upper end of the profession are often overpaid. The people at the bottom are often underpaid.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 3rd January 08:56
Fifteen is far too young to want to be a lawyer, or indeed pretty much anything, except maybe an astronaut, Rock God, Bond Villain, etc.
No commercial law firm is likely to offer work experience to someone so young, and internships for those of university age are competitive.
Serious advice to your daughter: consider doing a subject other than law at university. Don't do A level law. Study traditional academic subjects at A level and choose the degree subject that is most interesting to you and in which you are likely to do well. Choose a law degree if you wish, but expect very hard work. Aim for a Russell Group University, have fun, but work for at least a 2:1. Try to experience different types of law in practice. Corporate law can be grindingly tedious, and junior solicitors in smart law firms live the lives of slaves with big pay packets.
No commercial law firm is likely to offer work experience to someone so young, and internships for those of university age are competitive.
Serious advice to your daughter: consider doing a subject other than law at university. Don't do A level law. Study traditional academic subjects at A level and choose the degree subject that is most interesting to you and in which you are likely to do well. Choose a law degree if you wish, but expect very hard work. Aim for a Russell Group University, have fun, but work for at least a 2:1. Try to experience different types of law in practice. Corporate law can be grindingly tedious, and junior solicitors in smart law firms live the lives of slaves with big pay packets.
PS: One of the barristers' chambers in Bristol might say yes, but, frankly, the Bristol Bar is not of the best quality, in my opinion (apols to any Bristol barristers reading this, as there are of course many exceptions). Law firms: maybe try Bevan Brittan or Burges Salmon or Meade King, but I think that they may all say no to a fifteen year old.
No one suggests that many lawyers do not earn well and buy posh cars, but the criminal bar sports fewer flash motors than the civil. Gray's Inn is occupied by smart civil sets, for the most part. Quite a few criminal sets have moved to cheaper offices outside the Inns of Court.
From the figures, check whether earned over one year or more. Deduct 30-40% from the figure for expenses. Then deduct tax and NI from what's left to arrive at take home pay.
From the figures, check whether earned over one year or more. Deduct 30-40% from the figure for expenses. Then deduct tax and NI from what's left to arrive at take home pay.
Grayling moves the goalposts. After contracting to pay VHCC rates, he decided to cut those rates by 30%. Now a case that was classed as a VHCC is reclassified as an ordinary case. 100,000 pages of evidence to read, but no promise by MoJ to pay for more than 10,000 pages.
Another example - GANGBO injunction, an order restricting the civil liberties of some blokes who have not been convicted of crimes, on the basis of suspected gang membership. Legal aid declines to pay for lawyers to prep the case, saying they can do it on the hoof at court. Result, no lawyers, and the blokes, who may or may not be scrotes but have not been proven scrotey, have to represent themselves against a publicly funded team of three counsel and the legal department of a large local authority.
PH says, so what, but what if it was your silly but non criminal nephew who hangs out with the Saxo gang down by Lidl?
Am I professionally affected by any of this? Not at all. Do I GAF? Yes, I do, but as a citizen, not as a lawyer.
Another example - GANGBO injunction, an order restricting the civil liberties of some blokes who have not been convicted of crimes, on the basis of suspected gang membership. Legal aid declines to pay for lawyers to prep the case, saying they can do it on the hoof at court. Result, no lawyers, and the blokes, who may or may not be scrotes but have not been proven scrotey, have to represent themselves against a publicly funded team of three counsel and the legal department of a large local authority.
PH says, so what, but what if it was your silly but non criminal nephew who hangs out with the Saxo gang down by Lidl?
Am I professionally affected by any of this? Not at all. Do I GAF? Yes, I do, but as a citizen, not as a lawyer.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 3rd January 20:26
PRTVR said:
10 Pence Short said:
PRTVR said:
Something must be wrong if the amount we spend is massively different to everyone else.
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.Can we prove we have a better system? who is it better for? not your normal taxpayer who is funding it,most of them who are exempt from the service. I feel the whole legal system has lots of faults in it,
I shake my head when I hear things like going to appeal to a higher court, all at the tax payers expense, why can not a verdict just be given and that's it.
The current legal aid system is not Rolls Royce, or even Ford. It has already been cut and cut again. The latest round of cuts will make it a broken down old banger. The savings that the cuts will produce are quite small in national budget terms, but may have a disproportionate impact on the whole legal system, not least because more cock ups may occur, producing more appeals, and ultimately cancelling out some of the savings.
Quite a few people appear to adopt the position that because they would not be eligible for legal aid, no one else should be either. Whilst I agree that legal aid should in an ideal world be available to a wider income group than it is at present, I don't think that a policy based on "if I can't have it then nor can you" would be very principled.
santona1937 said:
...
For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
....
What if a non citizen is accused of a serious crime? Why should he or she not have access to a defence?For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
....
As for assessing need, what system do you propose?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff