Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms

[10 Pence Short]

Mark Benson said:

For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.

Why are you instructing a barrister through your solicitor?

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

Mark Benson said:

For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.

Why are you instructing a barrister through your solicitor?

Indeed, if he had gone to, for instance-

http://www.stobartbarristers.co.uk

he could have instructed a barrister directly.

[10 Pence Short]

Well, erm, no, that wouldn't be direct, would it? Don't confuse direct with putting Stobart in the middle who in turn use direct access.

Direct would be going, er, directly to a direct access barrister and negotiating a fee for the work done. If you don't like paying for solicitors to do some work on your behalf, that's the route open to you.

[singlecoil]

That depends on whether the barristers are employed by Stobarts or they are acting as an introductory agency.

[Mark Benson]

10 Pence Short said:

Mark Benson said:

For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.

Why are you instructing a barrister through your solicitor?

I'm not about to discuss my own legal affairs in public, but with respect, that's not the point.

Why does the solicitor, at the point he or she thinks "This is the job for a barrister" not do as my doctor does and refer me, taking no further active part in the process? Why do they remain involved?

So, I ask again, why does it need to be this way, other than to inflate fees?

[10 Pence Short]

I ask again, why do you feel the need to access a barrister through a solicitor? The answer to that question I suspect answers your own.

[Mark Benson]

10 Pence Short said:

I ask again, why do you feel the need to access a barrister through a solicitor? The answer to that question I suspect answers your own.

I accessed the barrister when it became apparent that their particular skills would be required, I did not go directly to the barrister because my solicitor thought she could deal with the matter - when it became more complicated she passed me 'up the line' to a barrister. I understand why that had to happen, I know the difference between the skillsets of solicitors and barristers.

But.

Being passed 'up the line' did not mean being referred as the solicitor was very much part of the process. I asked why that was and why it didn't mirror the doctor/consultant relationship to which it bears resemblance.

What is it with you nowadays 10PS? You seem intent on arguing minor points and derailing debate into petty sniping and focussing on a small detail, not the wider picture. Pack it in, it makes you seem like a pedantic contrarian and renders threads like this unreadable - you're a nicer bloke (I think) than you come across these days.

[singlecoil]

Mark Benson said:

What is it with you nowadays 10PS? You seem intent on arguing minor points and derailing debate into petty sniping and focussing on a small detail, not the wider picture. Pack it in, it makes you seem like a pedantic contrarian and renders threads like this unreadable - you're a nicer bloke (I think) than you come across these days.

Diplomatically put

[johnfm]

singlecoil said:

Mark Benson said:

For instance, why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? Other than the inflation of fees, I can see no logical reason for this, yet it's the norm. If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.

I'll be interested to see what the lawyers and their resident fanboys come up with on that one. My own response (as a non-lawyer) is to take the question as rhetorical, in other words the answer is obvious and not flattering to the legal profession.

Well, more often thatn not a specialist barrister is charging anywhere form £350-£much more per hour (depending on specialism) and the solicitor is most liekly cheaper.

So may pay a trainee or 1 or 2 PQE rate to do things (like drafting instructions to counsel, or prepping the bundle, or drafting witness statements) that take a long time at £150/hr - which are then considered and opined upon by a barrister in amuch shorter time for £400/hr.

It doesn't make sense for a barrister to interview witnesses and draft their statements, or make trial bundles - any more than it makes sense for a trainee to draft an opinion on whether a case has merit or not.

[Rovinghawk]

johnfm said:

So may pay a trainee or 1 or 2 PQE rate to do things (like drafting instructions to counsel, or prepping the bundle, or drafting witness statements) that take a long time at £150/hr

£150 per hour for what might be a trainee??????? Do you not see why some might consider some of the charging set-ups a little on the high side?

[johnfm]

Rovinghawk said:

johnfm said:

So may pay a trainee or 1 or 2 PQE rate to do things (like drafting instructions to counsel, or prepping the bundle, or drafting witness statements) that take a long time at £150/hr

£150 per hour for what might be a trainee??????? Do you not see why some might consider some of the charging set-ups a little on the high side?

Note - I doubt whether criminal firms have charge out rates liek this.

I have no doubt that commercial firms do. Most trainees are doing work that an associate would do, but the trainee does it supervised in order that they get training and experience - but the work is still done.

Also note, that a lot of 'time on the clock' is not recovered from the client. A large amount of clock time is written off, depending on a number of factors.

Plus it is allvery diffrent between transactional law (nothing to do with legal aid discussions) and contentious law.

[IroningMan]

Countdown said:

Thanks

And also - holy heck

Why are we more than twice as expensive as other countries which, on the face of it, are well developed, civilised, democratic countries? Either there's a significant lack of supply/demand (for legal aid) in those countries or there's a significant oversupply/demand in the UK - or am I missing something?

How odd that you should see no answer to this question.

[10 Pence Short]

Mark, it's not the details we're discussing, but the principle.

You seem to accept that your solicitor cannot be sufficient expert on the whole of the law, yet dislike having to pay for a barrister who is in the area required when your solicitor runs out of relevant knowledge.

This is why I don't understand your position.

You mention GPs and consultants- it's almost exactly that. If you're paying privately for your healthcare, you'd expect to need a consultant if something complicated came up, and you's expect to have to pay more for it.

[pork911]

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/juniors-14-a-day-...

[Mark Benson]

10 Pence Short said:

Mark, it's not the details we're discussing, but the principle.

You seem to accept that your solicitor cannot be sufficient expert on the whole of the law, yet dislike having to pay for a barrister who is in the area required when your solicitor runs out of relevant knowledge.

This is why I don't understand your position.

You mention GPs and consultants- it's almost exactly that. If you're paying privately for your healthcare, you'd expect to need a consultant if something complicated came up, and you's expect to have to pay more for it.

I don't know how many ways I can re-write this so you understand.

I have no issue with paying for expertise - I do use private healthcare and I understand that when I'm referred to a consultant, it is because the GP has reached their limit and I need more specialist knowledge.

But when the consultant takes over, the GP does not accompany me to the hospital or operating theatre and expect to be paid for doing so.

When the barrister takes over, the solicitor is retained (in many cases) and attends court alongside the barrister and (in many cases) a junior also.

My original point was, the legal profession is making a big fuss about these changes to legal aid, and yet they seem to operate what appear to be fee-maximising processes and continue to employ outdated practice which all drive up costs.
Are we as taxpayers not entitled to demand value-for-money?

Edited by Mark Benson on Tuesday 11th June 17:28

[Pat H]

johnfm said:

singlecoil said:

Mark Benson said:

Why am I charged by the solicitor to draft papers that the barrister then charges me to read and then I'm charged a further time when they finally meet to discuss them? If any of the resident defenders of the current system deign to answer only one part of my question, please explain why this practice is necessary and could not be replaced with a cheaper, more effective method.

I'll be interested to see what the lawyers and their resident fanboys come up with on that one.

Well, more often thatn not a specialist barrister is charging anywhere form £350-£much more per hour (depending on specialism) and the solicitor is most liekly cheaper.

So may pay a trainee or 1 or 2 PQE rate to do things (like drafting instructions to counsel, or prepping the bundle, or drafting witness statements) that take a long time at £150/hr - which are then considered and opined upon by a barrister in amuch shorter time for £400/hr.

Ok.

All I have ever done is criminal law. What goes on in civil practices is a mystery to me. So what I have to say relates only to crime.

First off, let me dispel a few myths about fees.

Criminal legal aid for solicitors is now based largely on fixed fees. But those fees are derived from the following notional rates:

Advocacy: £62ph
Preparation and taking instructions: £48ph
Travel and waiting: £25ph

Those rates are for solicitors, and it doesn't matter whether you are newly qualified or whether you have twenty years PQE. The rates are absolutely crap compared to any privately paying work.

And the vast majority of criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates' courts. Barristers are very rarely involved.

So in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is none of this doubling up of fees that is, understandably, the cause of so much angst.

It is only when we get to the Crown Court that the barristers get involved and can claim a separate fee.

Why the Hell can they claim a separate fee?

Why the Hell can't the solicitors just do it all for one fee?

Well, I accept that paying a separate fee to the barristers is counter intuitive. And I agree that it leads to duplication of work. And it is an area where there are definitely savings to be made.

There have been proposals in the past to pay a single fee for proceedings at the Crown Court, and then to leave the lawyers to carve it up between themselves. But barristers recognised that solicitors would just keep most of the cash for themselves.

Solicitors would achieve this by obtaining higher rights of audience (like I did), or by employing barristers in house for a flat salary (which I have also previously done).

So the Bar, predictably, was up in arms about the loss of their separate fixed fees. Barristers (quite rightly) saw that they would be put out of business. It would be devastating to their profession. And, being pretty effective lobbyists, have managed to keep the separate fee system in place.

So the govt has allowed the lay client (that's you) to access barristers directly. This is partly as a sop to the Bar, to keep them from complaining too much about solicitor advocates trespassing into Crown Court. It was also a precursor to abandoning the separate fee system.

There's nothing to stop you Googling "Barristers' Chambers", checking out their website and then picking someone who looks competent, then instructing them directly.

Well, actually, there is something stopping you.

You are in a police station. It is three in the morning. You have been been locked up for giving your partner a slap, pinching some Stella or selling some weed.

There is no internet access in your cell and you don't have access to your iPad. In any event, all the barristers are tucked up in bed.

So you end up with the Duty Solicitor.

That might be me.

And I will turn out to the police station at daft o'clock when the police are ready to interview you. And you will probably get on pretty well with me and decide to instruct me to deal with your case when it goes to court.

So the whole direct access thing doesn't really do much to help the beleaguered barristers.

But we really do need barristers.

If you want representing in the police station, then I'm your man. I can do a pretty decent job in the magistrates' court and I am comfortable enough doing the bread and butter cases in the Crown Court.

But the forensic cross examination of a child witness in an indecency trial, or dealing with a rape, manslaughter, armed robbery, GBH or blackmail trial? Nope, I won't be doing that.

You need the legal equivalent of a surgeon with his scalpel. And I'm strictly a blunt instrument man.

Decent barristers will become very hard to find. There isn't much new blood coming in. Those at the lower end aren't getting the experience because solicitor advocates are nicking all the easy cases.

Don't get me wrong, just because I'm a criminal lawyer doesn't mean that I want to preserve the status quo.

The system needs overhauling. A lot of money needs saving. I don't oppose sensible reform. The split fee system for Crown Court work would be a decent place to start.

I just think that the way the govt proposes to reform the system is daft.

Price Competitive Tendering and removing client choice are not the way forward.

Anyway, I've just been called to the nick, so I need to go.

Edited by Pat H on Wednesday 12th June 10:12

[Mark Benson]

Pat, thank you. That makes a lot of sense.

I don't want to see the legal system undermined by competitive tendering or any other measure that reduces quality in the name of cost where it can be avoided.

I do however take issue when I hear the legal profession wringing their hands about cuts to legal aid while simultaneously doing nothing to reduce their overheads (and thus their overall cost to therest of us, regardless of how we're funded).

[10 Pence Short]

Sorry Mark- I meant to type more earlier, but a combination of PH 417 errors and local woodland not having charging points for my phone meant it was cut short.

If you don't want to engage your solicitor and a barrister, you always now have direct access, though you'll possibly find yourself doing legwork normally done by the solicitor.

What I meant to type earlier, was a key difference between the medical and legal analogies, is the overall handling of a matter, strategy and correspondence with the other side. On contentious issues, these are things medical practitioners do not have to overcome in the same way.

[Pat H]

10 Pence Short said:

If you don't want to engage your solicitor and a barrister, you always now have direct access, though you'll possibly find yourself doing legwork normally done by the solicitor.

In my experience, barristers are pretty unenthusiastic about being instructed directly.

I'm not suggesting they won't do it, but they do like having solicitors involved.

One reason for this is the potential liabilities if it all goes wrong.

A firm of solicitors must have professional negligence indemnity insurance. This is no great shakes for a crime practise. My annual premiums used to be less than £5,000pa. But premiums for a practise that deals with conveyancing, medical negligence or personal injury work can easily be ten times as much. And that's just for an ordinary high street firm.

If you instruct a barrister via a solicitor and someone cocks it up, then you would sue the solicitor. But direct access changes all of this.

In the old days before direct access, there were several occasions where I sent a one line brief to counsel (and didn't charge for it) to help out friends who wanted to instruct a barrister without the cost of involving a solicitor. My indemnity insurer would probably have scowled at me, but they've had thirteen years of premiums out of me without a claim, so they would have been told to belt up.

Barristers are creatures of habit. They really are pretty resistant to change. Don't forget, they still go about their daily business dressed in a horsehair wig and a gown, things which went out of fashion hundreds of years ago.

And barristers really aren't making the most of the opportunities that direct access presents.

No one knows about it.

And that is the fault of the barristers and the Bar Council.

Surely the world has gone mad if a bloody haulage company can sneak in and take a slice, just to put you in touch with a barrister.

[IroningMan]

The haulage firm's presence is demonstrating just how arcane the whole kit and caboodle has become.

Your comments on the introduction of fixed rates ought to be surprising, but actually they play straight to the general perception of 'lawyers': inefficiency, nest-feathering and a failure of self-regulation.