Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
A topical Downfall mashup. This one is quite good, and pretty much spot on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPTaFRZSzI4&fea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPTaFRZSzI4&fea...
Jasandjules said:
When the s**t really hits the fan in time as it must when they destroy the legal system as they are trying to do, perhaps they will see the errors of their ways. But by then it will be too late.
Most of our politicians are lawyers, aren't they? why would they try to destroy the legal system?IN other news, why is access to the legal system so utterly, ruinously expensive for the man on the Clapham onmibus?
Tha "most politicians are lawyers" idea is a myth, easily disproven by doing some basic research. Most politicians are not lawyers, and the present Cabinet has fewer lawyers than most Cabinets of recent decades.
The attack on the legal system has two ideological bases. The first is authoritarian. The legal system resists authoritarian government, so the government seeks to curb the legal system, in the process unwinding constitutional norms that took years of struggle to establish.
The second is party political, and forms part of the generalised attack on those in society who do not meet the Thatcherite paradigm of being successful. There will be areas of the country where people on low incomes with limited access to transport will have no local lawyers available to them at legal aid rates.
There is a distinction between legal aid lawyers and privately paid lawyers.
Legal aid lawyers have mostly been underpaid for years, save for a few picked up by the press, and are now facing cuts so extensive that they won't be able to carry on in business in many cases. Legal aid lawyers should be paid more. They are being expected now to work for peanuts, and client choice of lawyer is being taken away.
Privately paid lawyers enjoyed a boom from the 80s onwards, and some have adopted US billing practices. Some of us have become too expensive, and should charge less, but it is important to recall, as people here tend to forget, than a headline fee of, say, 200 or 300 an hour is a turnover figure, not a profit figure. Average lawyer earnings nationally are far lower than people suppose. A minority of lawyers in large cities make substantial six figure incomes. A few make seven figure incomes, but these are relatively small in number. Most lawyers are on modest to reasonable five figure incomes, not inappropriate for graduates with post graduate qualifications selling specialist skills.
The attack on the legal system has two ideological bases. The first is authoritarian. The legal system resists authoritarian government, so the government seeks to curb the legal system, in the process unwinding constitutional norms that took years of struggle to establish.
The second is party political, and forms part of the generalised attack on those in society who do not meet the Thatcherite paradigm of being successful. There will be areas of the country where people on low incomes with limited access to transport will have no local lawyers available to them at legal aid rates.
There is a distinction between legal aid lawyers and privately paid lawyers.
Legal aid lawyers have mostly been underpaid for years, save for a few picked up by the press, and are now facing cuts so extensive that they won't be able to carry on in business in many cases. Legal aid lawyers should be paid more. They are being expected now to work for peanuts, and client choice of lawyer is being taken away.
Privately paid lawyers enjoyed a boom from the 80s onwards, and some have adopted US billing practices. Some of us have become too expensive, and should charge less, but it is important to recall, as people here tend to forget, than a headline fee of, say, 200 or 300 an hour is a turnover figure, not a profit figure. Average lawyer earnings nationally are far lower than people suppose. A minority of lawyers in large cities make substantial six figure incomes. A few make seven figure incomes, but these are relatively small in number. Most lawyers are on modest to reasonable five figure incomes, not inappropriate for graduates with post graduate qualifications selling specialist skills.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th May 11:19
Breadvan72 said:
The attack on the legal system has two ideological bases. The first is authoritarian. The legal system resists authoritarian government, so the government seeks to curb the legal system, in the process unwinding constitutional norms that took years of struggle to establish.
The second is party political and forms part of the generalised attack on those in society who do not meet the Thatcherite paradigm of being successful.
What are the bad points?The second is party political and forms part of the generalised attack on those in society who do not meet the Thatcherite paradigm of being successful.
The list of case types now excluded from legal aid is far-reaching.
www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/news/whats_new_mar2...
I can understand people saying it's now a two tier system - a different playing field for the rich and the poor.
That said, hasn't this always been an unfair system - before these changes I assume legal aid was means tested so those on very low incomes, perhaps surviving on welfare, were fine and again the very rich were ok leaving the massive group in the middle too poor to afford good legal representation but not poor enough to be eligible for legal aid?
www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/news/whats_new_mar2...
I can understand people saying it's now a two tier system - a different playing field for the rich and the poor.
That said, hasn't this always been an unfair system - before these changes I assume legal aid was means tested so those on very low incomes, perhaps surviving on welfare, were fine and again the very rich were ok leaving the massive group in the middle too poor to afford good legal representation but not poor enough to be eligible for legal aid?
Edited by Victor McDade on Wednesday 29th May 12:44
Victor McDade said:
The list of case types now excluded from legal aid are far-reaching.
www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/news/whats_new_mar2...
I can understand people saying it's now a two tier system - a different playing field for the rich and the poor.
That said, hasn't this always been an unfair system - before these changes I assume legal aid was means tested so those on very low incomes, perhaps surviving on welfare, were fine and again the very rich were ok leaving the massive group in the middle too poor to afford good legal representation but not poor enough to be eligible for legal aid?
That's certainly my understanding - and just as with pensions, I am a little uncomfortable that my taxes should be used to provide better for others than I can afford for myself.www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/news/whats_new_mar2...
I can understand people saying it's now a two tier system - a different playing field for the rich and the poor.
That said, hasn't this always been an unfair system - before these changes I assume legal aid was means tested so those on very low incomes, perhaps surviving on welfare, were fine and again the very rich were ok leaving the massive group in the middle too poor to afford good legal representation but not poor enough to be eligible for legal aid?
That said, I would far sooner see a system where access to representation was not a significant determinant of outcome - it is the ludicrous complexity of process that makes it necessary.
Civil legal aid has tended recently not to be for elective litigation of the "you sold me a duff car" variety. Legal aid has been there mostly for people facing eviction, domestic violence, deportation and so forth. It is also used to challenge unlawful conduct by the Government. Like any form of benefit, it is open to abuse, but, as usual, it is easier to abolish (in effect) something than than to reform it sensibly.
The current changes are not just about legal aid. They are also about limiting the ability of the individual to challenge the Government in Court. Hard-gained legal rights established since the seventeenth century are under threat.
Civil procedure is not all that complicated, and the rules are all available online, but, in a complex society and economy, it is almost impossible to keep the substantive law concise and simple. Governments don't help, however - much of the complexity of modern substantive law is due to excessive and poorly thought out legislation and regulation. All recent Governments have had legislative incontinence.
The current changes are not just about legal aid. They are also about limiting the ability of the individual to challenge the Government in Court. Hard-gained legal rights established since the seventeenth century are under threat.
Civil procedure is not all that complicated, and the rules are all available online, but, in a complex society and economy, it is almost impossible to keep the substantive law concise and simple. Governments don't help, however - much of the complexity of modern substantive law is due to excessive and poorly thought out legislation and regulation. All recent Governments have had legislative incontinence.
Far too many people seem to have absorbed the 'money no object' attitude of the Labour years when it comes to state spending on 'worthy' causes.
People require legal aid to pay for representation in criminal cases where they are unable to pay for it themselves. In all other circumstances they should either pay for it themselves or seek out charities who offer legal advice. It is not the government's job to pay for it for them.
People require legal aid to pay for representation in criminal cases where they are unable to pay for it themselves. In all other circumstances they should either pay for it themselves or seek out charities who offer legal advice. It is not the government's job to pay for it for them.
Breadvan72 said:
Civil legal aid has tended recently not to be for elective litigation of the "you sold me a duff car" variety. Legal aid has been there mostly for people facing eviction, domestic violence, deportation and so forth. It is also used to challenge unlawful conduct by the Government. Like any form of benefit, it is open to abuse, but, as usual, it is easier to abolish (in effect) something than than to reform it sensibly.
The current changes are not just about legal aid. They are also about limiting the ability of the individual to challenge the Government in Court. Hard-gained legal rights established since the seventeenth century are under threat.
Civil procedure is not all that complicated, and the rules are all available online, but, in a complex society and economy, it is almost impossible to keep the substantive law concise and simple. Governments don't help, however - much of the complexity of modern substantive law is due to excessive and poorly thought out legislation and regulation. All recent Governments have had legislative incontinence.
My house is filled with copies of The Green Book; their weight would tend to support only some of your last paragraph.The current changes are not just about legal aid. They are also about limiting the ability of the individual to challenge the Government in Court. Hard-gained legal rights established since the seventeenth century are under threat.
Civil procedure is not all that complicated, and the rules are all available online, but, in a complex society and economy, it is almost impossible to keep the substantive law concise and simple. Governments don't help, however - much of the complexity of modern substantive law is due to excessive and poorly thought out legislation and regulation. All recent Governments have had legislative incontinence.
People tend to over complicate things, and that goes for some lawyers and Judges as much as anyone. The rules themselves are fairly straightforward, but over time they become unduly embellished with nuance.
I add that I earn precisely zilch from legal aid, as I am lucky enough to work for mostly private sector clients, and sometimes for the government (which pays under a third of the private sector market rate). Despite having no financial stake in the legal aid reforms, I still care about the Government's misguided plans, as do most of the private sector lawyers that I know. We and our clients may suffer some bother if we have to wait longer to see a Judge because of all the litigant in person nonsense filling up the lists, and some of our clients may take their business to the US, Canada or elsewhere, but we will still be able to earn a living, unlike the legal aid lawyers, and we think it unfair that they are being threatened with ruin, and, more importantly, that their clients are being threatened with denial of access to justice, to fulfil an ideological purpose.
I add that I earn precisely zilch from legal aid, as I am lucky enough to work for mostly private sector clients, and sometimes for the government (which pays under a third of the private sector market rate). Despite having no financial stake in the legal aid reforms, I still care about the Government's misguided plans, as do most of the private sector lawyers that I know. We and our clients may suffer some bother if we have to wait longer to see a Judge because of all the litigant in person nonsense filling up the lists, and some of our clients may take their business to the US, Canada or elsewhere, but we will still be able to earn a living, unlike the legal aid lawyers, and we think it unfair that they are being threatened with ruin, and, more importantly, that their clients are being threatened with denial of access to justice, to fulfil an ideological purpose.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th May 14:21
Legal aid lawyers generally do not have Porsches (and, by the way, fancy being a member of PH and unable to spell the word Porsche!). Legal aid lawyers may have porches, but their houses tend to be quite modest, as are their incomes. The press will pick up a few high earners, and distort what they earn anyway, but most lawyers doing legal aid work earn a modest amount by the standards of graduate professionals. I could have a Porsche if I wanted one (I don't), but I'm not a legal aid lawyer.
This is not about the deficit. The saving will be very small in the overall scheme of things, and far more is wasted elsewhere. This is a consciously ideological attack on the rule of law by an authoritarian government. The next government, even if labour, will probably be just as authoritarian, as such is the trend nowadays.
JagLover's comment shows the extent to which the public are ill informed and do not wish to trouble themselves to be informed. They willingly believe that all lawyers are rich, when a little research would show that most of those doing legal aid work are not. The big money is concentrated in commercial firms and chambers, far from the legal aid high street law office.
The Government can rely on similar levels of public ignorance and laziness of thinking when it comes to doctors. You won't find many on PH who won't swear blind that every GP earns north of 100K for doing about ten minutes a week. Then go and talk to some actual GPs.
This is not about the deficit. The saving will be very small in the overall scheme of things, and far more is wasted elsewhere. This is a consciously ideological attack on the rule of law by an authoritarian government. The next government, even if labour, will probably be just as authoritarian, as such is the trend nowadays.
JagLover's comment shows the extent to which the public are ill informed and do not wish to trouble themselves to be informed. They willingly believe that all lawyers are rich, when a little research would show that most of those doing legal aid work are not. The big money is concentrated in commercial firms and chambers, far from the legal aid high street law office.
The Government can rely on similar levels of public ignorance and laziness of thinking when it comes to doctors. You won't find many on PH who won't swear blind that every GP earns north of 100K for doing about ten minutes a week. Then go and talk to some actual GPs.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th May 14:42
Breadvan72 said:
Legal aid lawyers have mostly been underpaid for years. They are being expected now to work for peanuts, and client choice of lawyer is being taken away.
Oh yes? So how much do these people actually earn? Or are their peanuts actually coconut-sized?How much career risk do they take each day when they go to work? How much commitment do they need to show in order to secure their modest crust? How safe is their role?
And are these the same people whose "clients" are Afghans in detainment in Afghanistan? Looks to me like another day out on the UK taxpayers' gravy train.
mph said:
As a matter of interest anyone know how much we spend on legal aid compared to other EU countries ?
Telegraph said:
Legal aid in England is five times as generous as it is on the continent, according to the findings of a new report.
An analysis of data provided by the Council of Europe showed an average of £3,000 is spent on each case in England.
Judges in Britain and Ireland were also shown by the study to be among the best paid in Europe, earning more than seven times the average worker's salary.
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, a Ministry of Justice spokesman stated Britain has one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world, costing more than £2 billion every year.
He stated this is money the government cannot afford to be spending at the present time, adding: "Our reforms target legal aid at the people who need legal support the most and on the most serious cases. This means taxpayers will know their money is really helping people and is not fuelling unnecessary legal action."
It was noted by the Ministry of Justice spokesman that as a result of the reforms being delivered by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance, it is expected that around £320 million is going to be saved from the budget.
In total, it was shown in the data that 1,286 cases were granted legal aid in 2010 per 100,000 residents in England and Wales, which is well above the average of 831.
The average amount of legal aid granted was found by the Council of Europe to be £2,860, which is three times as much as the next most generous country, Ireland.
Across the continent, the average amount was shown by the study to be £554, which is a fifth of the total in England and Wales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9553871/Legal-aid-in-England-five-times-as-generous-as-rest-of-Europe.htmlAn analysis of data provided by the Council of Europe showed an average of £3,000 is spent on each case in England.
Judges in Britain and Ireland were also shown by the study to be among the best paid in Europe, earning more than seven times the average worker's salary.
Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, a Ministry of Justice spokesman stated Britain has one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world, costing more than £2 billion every year.
He stated this is money the government cannot afford to be spending at the present time, adding: "Our reforms target legal aid at the people who need legal support the most and on the most serious cases. This means taxpayers will know their money is really helping people and is not fuelling unnecessary legal action."
It was noted by the Ministry of Justice spokesman that as a result of the reforms being delivered by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance, it is expected that around £320 million is going to be saved from the budget.
In total, it was shown in the data that 1,286 cases were granted legal aid in 2010 per 100,000 residents in England and Wales, which is well above the average of 831.
The average amount of legal aid granted was found by the Council of Europe to be £2,860, which is three times as much as the next most generous country, Ireland.
Across the continent, the average amount was shown by the study to be £554, which is a fifth of the total in England and Wales.
And page 7 here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Breadvan72 said:
Some of us have become too expensive, and should charge less, but it is important to recall, as people here tend to forget, than a headline fee of, say, 200 or 300 an hour is a turnover figure, not a profit figure.
The last solicitor I used complained how hard it was to make the figures add up when you can only bill in 6 minute increments, ie £25.00 chunks. I wasn't hugely sympathetic as I thought he did pretty well in making the 6 minute increments add up to a tidy sum at the end of each month, but I could see his point. When you are selling your time there are only so many hours in a day to charge for, and as you say, it's turnover not profit.Ozzie Osmond said:
Oh yes? So how much do these people actually earn? Or are their peanuts actually coconut-sized?
How much career risk do they take each day when they go to work? How much commitment do they need to show in order to secure their modest crust? How safe is their role?
And are these the same people whose "clients" are Afghans in detainment in Afghanistan? Looks to me like another day out on the UK taxpayers' gravy train.
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.How much career risk do they take each day when they go to work? How much commitment do they need to show in order to secure their modest crust? How safe is their role?
And are these the same people whose "clients" are Afghans in detainment in Afghanistan? Looks to me like another day out on the UK taxpayers' gravy train.
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff