Cost cutting + adviocate monitoring in the criminal courts
Discussion
Some of you may be interested in this:
http://legalhalfhour.blogspot.co.uk/
http://legalhalfhour.blogspot.co.uk/
blog said:
Why QASA matters to everyone. Of monkeys and peanuts.
Would you trust supermarkets with your freedom? Would you trust them to keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
When a serial killer sits in the dock would you want the person prosecuting them to have been chosen for ability or cost? If you found yourself wrongly accused would you be heartened to learn that your lawyer was chosen to maximise a profit margin?
The Criminal Bar Association think that such a future is approaching. Legal Half Hour spoke to Barrister Ian West, from Fountain Chambers, Middlesbrough, about why and how this is happening and how the CBA is trying to stop it.
Would you trust supermarkets with your freedom? Would you trust them to keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
When a serial killer sits in the dock would you want the person prosecuting them to have been chosen for ability or cost? If you found yourself wrongly accused would you be heartened to learn that your lawyer was chosen to maximise a profit margin?
The Criminal Bar Association think that such a future is approaching. Legal Half Hour spoke to Barrister Ian West, from Fountain Chambers, Middlesbrough, about why and how this is happening and how the CBA is trying to stop it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 09:04
Bum. Typo in thread title and unable to edit.
In the civil justice system, legal aid is being slashed, and new rules on costs seem aimed at ensuring that lawyers must do everything for a quid. A strange policy for a free marketeer Government. The City firms have been taking the piss on costs, but as usual the whole school gets caned because some posh boys broke the chapel windows.
In the civil justice system, legal aid is being slashed, and new rules on costs seem aimed at ensuring that lawyers must do everything for a quid. A strange policy for a free marketeer Government. The City firms have been taking the piss on costs, but as usual the whole school gets caned because some posh boys broke the chapel windows.
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
OK, well, that's one side of the argument, put in, shall we say, a rather emotive manner. For fairness, we should now read the other side of the argument.I remember the last time I consulted a solicitor, his fees were c. £120 per hour. That was about twenty years ago. Seems to me there is some scope for looking at the fees the legal profession charges, especially if I am having to pay a proportion of them through the Legal Aid system.
PS: you did know that the solicitor didn't get to keep the whole 120, didn't you?
No doubt, but show me a breakdown of their costs and compare those with the costs of a law firm. Also, what is wrong with people who have trained hard making a decent market based profit from the sale of their skills? I do not begrudge paying a skilled mechanic £60 an hour to fix my car. I do not begrudge paying my doctor £120 an hour. I do not begrudge paying my plumber £80 an hour. What is this thing about people having to work for buttons?
RH, did you miss the bits about regulatory costs, training costs, indemnity insurance, law books, staff costs etc? None of those are cheap. Look up the cost of some practitioner law books and online subscriptions services, average indemnity insurance bills, the cost of obtaining compulsory continuing training at conferences and seminars, and the average salaries of qualified legal secretaries.
I said at the outset that some of the big firms have been taking the Mickey on fees, and their billing practices can be quite outrageous, but the Gov isn't really aiming at them.
BTW, I still get 120 an hour before expenses and tax when I act for Brenda. Private sector clients pay more.
I said at the outset that some of the big firms have been taking the Mickey on fees, and their billing practices can be quite outrageous, but the Gov isn't really aiming at them.
BTW, I still get 120 an hour before expenses and tax when I act for Brenda. Private sector clients pay more.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 10:17
Rovinghawk said:
I would still suggest that your perception of reasonable reward for labour is higher than that of those in other professions.
RH
I agree, but why should it not be, if selling a specialised skill after years of training? We are cheap compared to bankers, and we arguably work harder than they do, and sometimes add value to a transaction, or change a life for the better, or, of course, for the worse. RH
I do agree, RH. I think we have become too expensive. Also, there are too many lawyers, and law schools are being greedy, and unfair to students by letting too many in, taking their money, and launching them into a difficult job market with little prospect of being hired.
I would happily see some reduction in overall charging rates, especially at the top end of the market, but not at the expense of effective access to justice, and the Government's policy is heading in that direction.
I would happily see some reduction in overall charging rates, especially at the top end of the market, but not at the expense of effective access to justice, and the Government's policy is heading in that direction.
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
It is being proved on a daily basis already in the criminal courts, and the evidence is likely to build up over time. The public clamours for effective criminal justice, but the Government proposes to do it all for a tenner.
That's it, that's your proof?Jonleeper said:
...
I am not unhappy to pay £120 per hour when I believe that I am actually getting that time devoted to my case and value is being added. Recently I got sight of a legal bill for one of my soldiers; complete with the documentation that went with it. There were a number of charges that were just ridiculous and obviously only put in to bump up the cost of the case. The best example of this is the fee for writing a letter. Now I understand that nothing in this life is free and that letters are an important part of the process but what I find incredible is that a letter that states “thank you for your letter dated xx xxx 2013. It has been received and a response will be forthcoming in due course.” is billed at £80 as that we the standard basic fee for a letter! There has been no legal thought put in, it does not advance the case in any way and will have taken a secretary 5 minutes to write (if that) but still commands a £80 fee! It is this that I believe needs addressing not the basic hourly rate.
I agree that the the billing practices of some lawyers have become indefensible. i welcome some of the new civil costs rules, but they are arguably risking a baby/bathwater faff, as is often the case with top down reforms. I am not unhappy to pay £120 per hour when I believe that I am actually getting that time devoted to my case and value is being added. Recently I got sight of a legal bill for one of my soldiers; complete with the documentation that went with it. There were a number of charges that were just ridiculous and obviously only put in to bump up the cost of the case. The best example of this is the fee for writing a letter. Now I understand that nothing in this life is free and that letters are an important part of the process but what I find incredible is that a letter that states “thank you for your letter dated xx xxx 2013. It has been received and a response will be forthcoming in due course.” is billed at £80 as that we the standard basic fee for a letter! There has been no legal thought put in, it does not advance the case in any way and will have taken a secretary 5 minutes to write (if that) but still commands a £80 fee! It is this that I believe needs addressing not the basic hourly rate.
As for the criminal justice system, a better approach, I think, would not be to set an an arbitrary target figure for how much a case should cost, without regard to its individual features. In any event, standard fees paid by the State to either side should be set by reference to real world expenses. At present, leaving aside a lucky few who get big fees on legal aid, many legal aid lawyers are struggling to stay profitable at all on the rates paid. Another problem is that some Courts are becoming clogged up by litigants in person, unable to afford lawyers or obtain legal aid, who tend to slow things down and multiply the volume of appeals.
On a related but slightly different topic, meanwhile there is a danger of the recently meritocratic legal profession becoming once again the preserve of the posh, as the costs of training are sky rocketing. When my first Head of Chambers started at the Bar after Harrow, Cambridge, and the Guards in the 1950s, you had to have a private income in order to survive the first few years. When I started in the 1980s, State educated, formerly working class blokes like me were getting in, as were an increasing number of women, and a few non white people. This trend continued until recently, and we still recruit kids from Council House backgrounds, but increasingly we are again seeing a predominance of applicants who are privately educated and/or being supported by mum and dad, with other kids not applying to us as much as they used to.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 13:11
Breadvan72 said:
On a related but slightly different topic, meanwhile there is a danger of the recently meritocratic legal profession becoming once again the preserve of the posh, as the costs of training are sky rocketing. When my first Head of Chambers started at the Bar after Harrow, Cambridge, and the Guards in the 1950s, you had to have a private income in order to survive the first few years. When I started in the 1980s, State educated, formerly working class blokes like me were getting in, as were an increasing number of women, and a few non white people. This trend continued until recently, and we still recruit kids from Council House backgrounds, but increasingly we are again seeing a predominance of applicants who are privately educated and/or being supported by mum and dad, with other kids not applying to us as much as they used to.
I agree, but it is not just the cost of training. The starting point is the increasing cost of tertiary education. Then add on the cost of training (including, if need be, the cost of a law conversion course). That ante then gets bet on your ability to (a) secure a pupillage and (b) get taken on at the end of it. If you can secure (a) and (b) and aren't stuck doing publicly funded work, you might just end up making a go of it. If you can only secure (a), chances are you'll be left with a bucket of debt and a search for a job in a career path that will be your plan B. But if you can't secure (a) or (b), you're in real financial trouble - and it's that spectre that is driving talented but not well off people away. It's not a welcome development at all. Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 13:11
For many years there has been a school of thought at the Treasury that advocacy requires no more skill than being able to talk. If only that were true...
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th March 22:51
University costs are becoming a real deterrent, especially to bright kids from relatively poor families. Russell Group Universities are becoming more and more solidly middle to upper middle class with each passing year. New Labour and the Tories between them seem intent on halting or even reversing social mobility. This has, I think, nothing to do with grammar schools, as even Cameron knows that the grammar schools helped a few whilst abandoning many to scrapheap secondary mods.
I went from a comprehensive school to an elite university, with fees paid and a full grant. The fees and grant have been repaid many times over in higher rate taxes. The inability of the Government to see that the country needs to invest in its future, through high quality university education, made available for free or at a modest cost to all who are properly qualified (that does not have to mean half the population) is more than a bit depressing. Elitist? Yes, but every society needs elites, and good meritocratic elites can help drive forward economic and social progress.
I went from a comprehensive school to an elite university, with fees paid and a full grant. The fees and grant have been repaid many times over in higher rate taxes. The inability of the Government to see that the country needs to invest in its future, through high quality university education, made available for free or at a modest cost to all who are properly qualified (that does not have to mean half the population) is more than a bit depressing. Elitist? Yes, but every society needs elites, and good meritocratic elites can help drive forward economic and social progress.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 21st September 10:16
I don't buy into the whole "greedy lawyer" argument - do people in the legal profession who are primarily motivated by money go into criminal law? I doubt it.
I believe in fair justice, but on the other £1.5 billion is a large sum. It's sometimes hard to see past all the repeat legal-aid (ab)users. It'd probably never work, but if you have 10 convictions or more, perhaps you should no longer are eligible for legal aid. It gets deducted from your benefits / you have to pay for it after that threshold.
I believe in fair justice, but on the other £1.5 billion is a large sum. It's sometimes hard to see past all the repeat legal-aid (ab)users. It'd probably never work, but if you have 10 convictions or more, perhaps you should no longer are eligible for legal aid. It gets deducted from your benefits / you have to pay for it after that threshold.
photosnob said:
Perhaps we should look at why people have 10 convictions, and offer them more support rather than taking it away.
A lot of court disposals are just that. For example, orders to get anger / drugs / alcohol treatment and put through a formal system to ensure it gets done. They are trying to remove the cause. Ultimately it takes will power and personal responsibility which a lot of persistent criminals do not, and will not ever have. photosnob said:
I was always under the impression the CPS had to check both there was enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction, and it was in the public interest to prosecute.
They do, it's called the "full code test". photosnob said:
How it can ever be in the public interest to prosecute someone for having a bit of weed in their pocket?
Because it's a class B substance, possession is criminal and the majority of the public support it being so. Just because you don't believe it's in the public interest doesn't mean most of the public don't. You're not the authority on what constitutes public interest or not. There are also three out-of-court disposals (which allow someone at least two occasions of being in possession of cannabis) before someone is charged.
photosnob said:
Or after two adults having a stupid drunken wrestle with no injuries caused?
Risk isn't outcome dependant. I could push you over and cause no injuries, or I could push you over and you hit you head and die. The push needs to be challenged and condemned, regardless of outcome and not left to chance. Low-level public order offences prevent serious assaults.
photosnob said:
The fact that I know someone who was convicted (after trial) of pushing a police officer back when they tried to push into his house (not a single injury) says it it all. That trial must have cost thousands. He got a conditional discharge. Thousands wasted, his ability to work in a whole range of fields removed - not a single positive result for anyone. Yet it's in the "public interest".
Perhaps he shouldn't assault police officers. He was the cause and effect there, not "the system". See above again about outcome and risk.photosnob said:
Explain to me how any of the examples I gave are in "the public interest" to prosecute.
The possession example discourages people from giving money to organised criminals who cause immense harm to society. The assault / public order example discourages future behaviour that can lead to serious harm and the perception of crime and disorder.
photosnob said:
For it to be in the public interest it would hopefully make society a better place, or help people improve their lives. Taking people to court it almost never the best way to do this.
The plus 81,000 who are in prison through going through the courts are unable to offend against society whilst in there. Also see below for re-offending rates. photosnob said:
Until we properly define what the public interest is, then it's nothing more than a cop out for when someone decides they don't want to charge someone.
It's properly defined here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_...photosnob said:
Not all offences are anywhere near serious enough to justify the costs and long term damage to an individual that prosecuting them does.
Indeed. There were 330,000 out of court disposals in 2013. Most cases are guilty pleas which aren't that expensive. If someone wants to plead NG then they eliminate themselves from an out-of-court disposal and run the risk of a conviction. I suspect the genius you knew who assaulted a police officer could have received a caution. photosnob said:
A court order telling someone to do something is pretty pointless.
Wrong. Youth referral orders have the lowest re-offending rates and the largest sample of people. 
Community Orders for adults have a re-offending rate of 35% (within a year).
So tell me how 6.5 / 10 is "pointless"?
photosnob said:
Currently the rates of offending after short sentences demonstrate that.
Short prison sentences have a higher re-offending rate. One reason is because you're dealing with more tenacious criminals who continue to offend and behave in that manner. The second is because fewer interventions are able to be put in place unlike longer prison sentences. photosnob said:
You might think the current system is working. But it isn't.
Fewer people re-offend compared to those who don't. That seems like a system working to me. photosnob said:
We need to start looking at how we can help people to change their behaviour rather than just punish them when they infringe the rules.
Lots of disposals are aimed at addresses underlying needs and behaviours. Look at the youth proportions. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff