Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
We are discussing legal aid lawyers. The £200 an hour solicitor would have to bill hard to make 400K a year, and that would be a gross figure before expenses and tax. A lawyer can rarely bill every hour of a (say) 40 or 50 hour week, as some of those hours are spent on business management, marketing, client relationships, training, regulatory blah and so on.
400K a year plus would not be an uncommon gross figure for a lawyer in a large firm or a commercial chambers doing privately paid commercial work. The typical High Street solicitor doesn't make anything like 400K a year gross. The profession is widely stratified. At the top end, commercial solicitors and barristers can be grossing well over a million a year, but at the bottom end people gross well under 100K a year. I reiterate that all fee figures are gross of expenses and tax. Solicitor profits margins are much lower than those for barristers, because solicitors have higher overheads.
400K a year plus would not be an uncommon gross figure for a lawyer in a large firm or a commercial chambers doing privately paid commercial work. The typical High Street solicitor doesn't make anything like 400K a year gross. The profession is widely stratified. At the top end, commercial solicitors and barristers can be grossing well over a million a year, but at the bottom end people gross well under 100K a year. I reiterate that all fee figures are gross of expenses and tax. Solicitor profits margins are much lower than those for barristers, because solicitors have higher overheads.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 09:51
You are very ill informed. An ill informed opinion is not an opinion worth having. Private sector lawyers work in a very competitive market. Competition on price is intense. Prices are not set by any mechanism other than the market - there is no cartel. I am talking of private sector work. The Government pays fixed rates for civil work. The rates have not been increased since the 1990s. Has your pay been frozen since the 1990s? In criminal work, the rates are set by the Government and have been going down in recent years.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 10:22
herewego said:
These charges are incredibly excessive. ...
Which charges?What rates are excessive? £80 to prepare and conduct a trial? That sort of sum is what a junior legal aid lawyer would get. If it takes six hours to prepare, and the lawyer is in court for, say, five hours, and there is, say, an hour of travelling/waiting, then the lawyer is earning less than most cleaners. Maybe the lawyer will be lazy/get lucky, not do the prep, and plead the case out, and so bill £80 (NB gross) for maybe an hour or two hours work (I reiterate that the 80 quid is not the take home pay), but if the lawyer is conscientious, and many (not all) are, and the case goes the distance, the lawyer is working for not very much money.
How about my rates? £120 an hour when representing the Government: non negotiable. Deduct about 30 per cent for expenses (expenses would be more if I was a solicitor), then deduct tax. For the private sector, my rates are negotiable between about £250 and £450 an hour. Again, knock off about a third for expenses and then deduct tax to get the take home figure. I am one of the lucky ones, as I do fairly high end ish work for mostly corporate clients that are willing to pay commercial rates, but those clients haggle like hell over fees. If they think that I am too expensive, they go to someone else who will do the gig for less.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 10:34
Not in the legal aid sector. There is no real market there. Prices are set by Government. To be blunt, some of those doing legal aid work do it because they are not good enough to get better paid work. Others are skilled and work at least partly from a sense of , but even they have bills to pay. Morale amongst those types is low, and many are quitting.
Do we want criminal justice in the hands of the least able prosecutors and defenders? Would you like the lawyer who prosecutes a nasty crim for a serious crime or defends you when you are unjustly accused to be selected on quality or purely on cost? Cost must be a factor, of course, but if the whole system is geared to running on the cheapo, it may not work so well.
Outside the legal aid world there is arguably an over supply of lawyers, but the market operates to deal with that.
I am fortunate enough not to do any legal aid work, and no criminal work at all, but I give a toss about the issue because I give a toss about effective prosecuting and defending, both of which serve the public interest.
Do we want criminal justice in the hands of the least able prosecutors and defenders? Would you like the lawyer who prosecutes a nasty crim for a serious crime or defends you when you are unjustly accused to be selected on quality or purely on cost? Cost must be a factor, of course, but if the whole system is geared to running on the cheapo, it may not work so well.
Outside the legal aid world there is arguably an over supply of lawyers, but the market operates to deal with that.
I am fortunate enough not to do any legal aid work, and no criminal work at all, but I give a toss about the issue because I give a toss about effective prosecuting and defending, both of which serve the public interest.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 11:55
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff