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...
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
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.
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
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.
See above. The peanuts are, I would say, peanut sized, especially in the context of graduate professional earnings. 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.
Career risk? Often quite a lot. You a re only as good as your last case.
Commitment? A 2.1 or higher degree, and then one or two years post graduate training, and then one or two years on the job training. The law courses cost five figures sums. Student debts, and no guarantee of a job at the end of the training. So, some commitment. I'd say.
Safe? Lawyers feel recessions too, and add to this the current changes. Redundancies are not rare, even amongst the big firms, and the small firms are closing down, in many cases. There will be areas of the north of England where, if your violent partner beats you up, or your dodgy landlord changes the locks, or the council comes to take your children, the nearest legal aid lawyer may be 80 miles away, and you won't have a car or be able to afford public transport that far.
As for detainees in Afghanistan, why should our forces overseas be entitled to detain people without trial? If we go to war for democracy and civil society, we should behave like a democracy and civil society, at least when not actually shooting people who are opposed to those things.
As Lord Atkin said in 1942, when the baddies were much worse baddies than our current baddies:-
"In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law."
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th May 18:11
Solicitors and barristers at the top end earn six figure sums before tax, and in a few cases seven figure sums, but those are the ones working in the swankiest law firms and chambers. Many solicitors and most barristers earn reasonable amounts - high five figures or low six. Many more are in the low to medium five figures bracket.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th May 21:39
McWigglebum4th said:
As someone who made the mistake of getting a job i'll never get legal aid
So not bothered about it ending
A commendably PH style "the world extends no further than the confines of my house/car/family; financial weakness reflects moral weakness; I shall never encounter misfortune, and everyone else can go hang " attitude!So not bothered about it ending
I am looking at text, not sub text, which is always rather a fraught subject. Mr Wigglebum appears to say that the fact that people less fortunate than him can't have something doesn't bother him. No doubt he can tell us what he meant, if he wishes.
There is a separate debate to be had about whether it is better for all if everyone is treated unfairly, rather than just some people.
There is a separate debate to be had about whether it is better for all if everyone is treated unfairly, rather than just some people.
legal aid is another example of welfare designed to reward those who live off the state with yet another free service at the expense of taxpayers who cannot afford the same service for themselves. i'm sure that such a benefit would be lovely if the country could already meet its spending obligations. good riddance. i'm sure the poor lawyers will find a few whiplash cases to pay the mortgage
What quaint views! My chambers, in common with most of our main competitors, have had a network since the mid 90s and working from home via the net is normal. I work from home on two or three days of an average week if not in court or going to meetings. In theory, a great many businesses of all kinds could operate without permanent office spaces, and this has been the case for many years, but still most businesses have permanent offices. A permanent physical base for any business provides somewhere to meet clients, and somewhere to maintain the collegiality of the organisation. Barristers traditionally had cheap office space, and it was often rather grotty, but the rents went up at about the same time as the internet happened along, and the facilities are now more modern, at least at the mid to upper end of the market.
I don't do criminal cases, but, if everyone is advised to plead guilty, how come there are so many trials and so many acquittals?
I don't do criminal cases, but, if everyone is advised to plead guilty, how come there are so many trials and so many acquittals?
Pat H said:
...
I was never really bothered that I was only paid half what I might get as a commerical lawyer. Criminal advocacy was a vocation that I enjoyed.
Representing child molesters was never much fun, but looking after society's lost souls was quite satisfying. The mentally ill, the addicts, those with learning difficulties etc all needed a voice, even if their behaviour was often reprehensible.
I've been doing it for the thick end of twenty years.
But a couple of months ago I cashed in my chips and walked away from it.
Pat, thanks for sticking with the thankless task for so long. You won't win many plaudits here on PH for providing a service to the flotsam of society, but someone has to do it, if we are to call ourselves civilised, and some of us at least are grateful to you for your efforts. I was never really bothered that I was only paid half what I might get as a commerical lawyer. Criminal advocacy was a vocation that I enjoyed.
Representing child molesters was never much fun, but looking after society's lost souls was quite satisfying. The mentally ill, the addicts, those with learning difficulties etc all needed a voice, even if their behaviour was often reprehensible.
I've been doing it for the thick end of twenty years.
But a couple of months ago I cashed in my chips and walked away from it.
singlecoil said:
Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.
SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.
SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.Yes, it is. Satire has long played a powerful role in public debate, in polities dating back to at least the fifth century BC (I would guess that you are unlikely to have read much Aristophanes). If you knew any history, you would know that.
The arguments caricatured in the piece sound pretty much like your "arguments", singlecoil.
The arguments caricatured in the piece sound pretty much like your "arguments", singlecoil.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff