Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I was and still am uncertain of what your point was and is. Anyway, the salary figure quoted is about 28K, not 50K plus. 50K plus is a gross figure. In this context and others, people often seem unable to grasp that the fee charged by any business is not the same as the profit of that business, and that is as true when the business is a single person as it is when the business is some vast megacorp. Would 28K seem a lot to most people? I am not sure, as the national average salary is above that, IIRC. Public perception of lawyer earnings may be skewed by reports of the large amounts earned by the lawyers at the top end, who mostly do commercial work for corporate clients, not criminal cases.
According to wikipedia the average annual median income was £21k before tax and £18700 after tax, so yes, £28k is a lot of money to a lot of people - more than double a full time minimum wage salary. The point I was making is that the article is not clear around the actual income/earnings.
As anyone who has been self employed, or looked after the finance figures of someone who is, the gross and net is not really the full story is it? Car costs, entertainment, nice shiny new laptop, iPad etc? All part of the cost of business guv. For the salary man all the latter are out of the net. So has been pointed out even at the low end still not a bad situation compared to the bulk of the populace.
I totally agree with BV that criminal justice system needs to be properly funded, by properly qualified professionals who need paying accordingly, but still don't see that the current solution is right. So what's the answe BV? You've suggested the US approach is not working, so what other options are there?
As anyone who has been self employed, or looked after the finance figures of someone who is, the gross and net is not really the full story is it? Car costs, entertainment, nice shiny new laptop, iPad etc? All part of the cost of business guv. For the salary man all the latter are out of the net. So has been pointed out even at the low end still not a bad situation compared to the bulk of the populace.
I totally agree with BV that criminal justice system needs to be properly funded, by properly qualified professionals who need paying accordingly, but still don't see that the current solution is right. So what's the answe BV? You've suggested the US approach is not working, so what other options are there?
HMRC scrutinise barristers' tax returns quite closely (easy target - payments hard to conceal, business structure simple, little opportunity for funny business), so claiming for shiny cars and so forth is not all that easy, unless there is evident business need for the car. Is either a pre tax or a post tax income of 28K a lot for someone who has trained for several years at significant financial cost and is practising a difficult professional skill* that has important public interest effects? I don't think that it is. As I mentioned above, there is a danger that if the rewards aren't attractive enough, the talented people will go elsewhere and only the duffers will remain. It has always been the case that you tend to need a bit of a vocation to go into criminal law, but even those who are dedicated to the idea of efficient criminal justice get fed up with what is, by the standards of a graduate profession, fairly low.
The system has always had its faults, of course, but it was functioning better before the several waves of cuts that have been applied over the last several years. The budgets have already been pared down so much that there is little or no room form further paring. The same is true on the prosecution side, with the result that many cases collapse because the CPS isn't ready, has lost the file, can't produce witnesses, and so on. Guilty people may walk free because of skimping on prosecution costs. Skimping on defence costs risks an increase in wrongful convictions and in appeals, including unmeritorious appeals where the mishandling of the trial gives the villain an argument. None of this serves the public interest. We should of course examine any system and not just carry on with same old same old unless there is good reason to do so, but the system as it was up to about the 1990s was not so dire.
* I mean advocacy. It's not rocket science, but it's not quite as easy as many seem to think. It requires training and practice, and can be quite laborious. When I am doing a (civil) trial I don't get a lot of sleep or down time, as I may be up all night reading large and boring bundles of documents and trying to think of ways to cross examine the other side's witnesses, and that's par for the course with most trial lawyers. In criminal law, there is the added factor that much of the work involves very unpleasant facts and people, and can be emotionally challenging in a way similar to (but not as bad as) work in medicine. It's not just turning up and making off the cuff witty remarks, in between long bouts in the pub.
The system has always had its faults, of course, but it was functioning better before the several waves of cuts that have been applied over the last several years. The budgets have already been pared down so much that there is little or no room form further paring. The same is true on the prosecution side, with the result that many cases collapse because the CPS isn't ready, has lost the file, can't produce witnesses, and so on. Guilty people may walk free because of skimping on prosecution costs. Skimping on defence costs risks an increase in wrongful convictions and in appeals, including unmeritorious appeals where the mishandling of the trial gives the villain an argument. None of this serves the public interest. We should of course examine any system and not just carry on with same old same old unless there is good reason to do so, but the system as it was up to about the 1990s was not so dire.
* I mean advocacy. It's not rocket science, but it's not quite as easy as many seem to think. It requires training and practice, and can be quite laborious. When I am doing a (civil) trial I don't get a lot of sleep or down time, as I may be up all night reading large and boring bundles of documents and trying to think of ways to cross examine the other side's witnesses, and that's par for the course with most trial lawyers. In criminal law, there is the added factor that much of the work involves very unpleasant facts and people, and can be emotionally challenging in a way similar to (but not as bad as) work in medicine. It's not just turning up and making off the cuff witty remarks, in between long bouts in the pub.
Gove kicks another brain burp of Grayling into touch?
Gove beats May to the top job?
When Gove has twice pulled Grayling's ideas how his Grayling the Leader of the House?
Is he like some male equivalent of Lin Homer?
Or Theresa May as she doesn't seem to have delivered much on her objectives.
Gove beats May to the top job?
When Gove has twice pulled Grayling's ideas how his Grayling the Leader of the House?
Is he like some male equivalent of Lin Homer?
Or Theresa May as she doesn't seem to have delivered much on her objectives.
I found out today while representing (for a good privately paid fee) a company accusing three young people (who are of slender means) of contempt of court (they are alleged to have broken a court order made against them) that legal aid will pay a total of 130 quid for their lawyers to represent these young and possibly none too bright individuals at a hearing that may last two days, following which they might possibly be sent to prison. I shall do pretty well out of the case as my corporate client has the money to spend on it. The people on the other side, who risk losing their liberty, may struggle to find a lawyer to take their case for 130 quid.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 29th January 21:42
30 odd years ago Matt Johnson sang "Let the poor drink their milk,while the rich eat their honey"... Looks like nothing has changed 
Mind you,30 years ago the lawyers would still get more than £130 to represent people Im sure(although my recollection of what counsel charged back me then is a bit hazy!)
Mind you,30 years ago the lawyers would still get more than £130 to represent people Im sure(although my recollection of what counsel charged back me then is a bit hazy!)
Breadvan72 said:
I found out today while representing (for a good privately paid fee) a company accusing there young people (who are of slender means) of contempt of court (they are alleged to have broken a court order made against them) that legal aid will pay a total of 130 quid for their lawyers to represent these young and possibly none too bright individuals at a hearing that may last two days, following which they might possibly be sent to prison. I shall do pretty well out of the case as my corporate client has the money to spend on it. The people on the other side, who risk losing their liberty, may struggle to find a lawyer to take their case for 130 quid.
Great British Kerching Values!Justice isn't for them there paupers.
Breadvan72 said:
I found out today while representing (for a good privately paid fee) a company accusing there young people (who are of slender means) of contempt of court (they are alleged to have broken a court order made against them) that legal aid will pay a total of 130 quid for their lawyers to represent these young and possibly none too bright individuals at a hearing that may last two days, following which they might possibly be sent to prison. I shall do pretty well out of the case as my corporate client has the money to spend on it. The people on the other side, who risk losing their liberty, may struggle to find a lawyer to take their case for 130 quid.
When you win this one, you can give yourself a pat on the back.Do these young people, of slender means, face a prison sentence?
In circumstances like this, I think that I would find it very hard to be a barrister.
don4l said:
Breadvan72 said:
I found out today while representing (for a good privately paid fee) a company accusing there young people (who are of slender means) of contempt of court (they are alleged to have broken a court order made against them) that legal aid will pay a total of 130 quid for their lawyers to represent these young and possibly none too bright individuals at a hearing that may last two days, following which they might possibly be sent to prison. I shall do pretty well out of the case as my corporate client has the money to spend on it. The people on the other side, who risk losing their liberty, may struggle to find a lawyer to take their case for 130 quid.
When you win this one, you can give yourself a pat on the back.Do these young people, of slender means, face a prison sentence?
In circumstances like this, I think that I would find it very hard to be a barrister.
don4l said:
When you win this one, you can give yourself a pat on the back.
Do these young people, of slender means, face a prison sentence?
In circumstances like this, I think that I would find it very hard to be a barrister.
Would you expect your solicitor or barrister to decide whether you were innocent or guilty (and act accordingly?Do these young people, of slender means, face a prison sentence?
In circumstances like this, I think that I would find it very hard to be a barrister.
"M'lud. My client says he didn't do it. I rest my case."
Dr Johnson is probably already on this thread, but here he is again -
"Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument.
As it rarely happens that a man is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
...
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
"Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument.
As it rarely happens that a man is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
...
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd February 19:37
The debate rages on.
Sounds like the government need to reassess the situation and see if they can come up with a solution which gives more people, especially the poor, full access to justice.
The former Commons deputy speaker Nigel Evans, who spent his life savings defending himself against false accusations of rape and sexual abuse, has said he would now vote against the legal aid cuts brought in by the Conservative-led coalition. His call to restore funding to its pre-2012 level comes as other prominent Conservative MPs including Bob Neill, the chair of the Commons justice select committee, say the savings were excessive and may have displaced costs on to other departments.Neill, a barrister, has said the original impulse may have been to cut down “on some instances of needless expenditure” but the pendulum has swung too far. “The evidence is pretty compelling that changes are needed … We cannot expect people who often have multiple problems in their lives necessarily to be able to resolve such things on their own,” he said.
The Secret Barrister: 'Without legal aid, the rule of law collapses'. Anonymous author explains why legal aid is so vital and how cuts threaten its future
Legal aid: how has it changed in 70 years?. Everything you need to know about the history of legal aid and where it stands now
Sounds like the government need to reassess the situation and see if they can come up with a solution which gives more people, especially the poor, full access to justice.
The former Commons deputy speaker Nigel Evans, who spent his life savings defending himself against false accusations of rape and sexual abuse, has said he would now vote against the legal aid cuts brought in by the Conservative-led coalition. His call to restore funding to its pre-2012 level comes as other prominent Conservative MPs including Bob Neill, the chair of the Commons justice select committee, say the savings were excessive and may have displaced costs on to other departments.Neill, a barrister, has said the original impulse may have been to cut down “on some instances of needless expenditure” but the pendulum has swung too far. “The evidence is pretty compelling that changes are needed … We cannot expect people who often have multiple problems in their lives necessarily to be able to resolve such things on their own,” he said.
The Secret Barrister: 'Without legal aid, the rule of law collapses'. Anonymous author explains why legal aid is so vital and how cuts threaten its future
Legal aid: how has it changed in 70 years?. Everything you need to know about the history of legal aid and where it stands now
BlackLabel said:
The debate rages on.
The Secret Barrister: 'Without legal aid, the rule of law collapses'. Anonymous author explains why legal aid is so vital and how cuts threaten its future
I'm halfway through the audio version of this at the moment.The Secret Barrister: 'Without legal aid, the rule of law collapses'. Anonymous author explains why legal aid is so vital and how cuts threaten its future
A real eye-opener & has made me reconsider my previous, somewhat solid view on things.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff