Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
skwdenyer said:
Countdown said:
she was iiving with her parents at the time so I imagine she didn't have too many other financial pressures.
I can't believe there seem to be some on this thread defending a situation in which people have to rely upon living with their parents in order to be able to afford to train, and then earn (net) £13k a year whilst potentially carrying crippling debts.Sorry to be blunt, but is everyone here completely resigned to the idea that social mobility is not worth it, that a legal profession full of people from entitled backgrounds is good?
And FWIW I agree with the barristers striking. They're self employed, they have the right to pick and choose when they want to work.
Miserablegit said:
Social mobility is, IMHO, the biggest issue at the Bar.
It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc....
This! Even back in the day, it was ever this. Hopefully less so now but I used to instruct a pupil a lot on my smaller cases, she was bloody good but was a vicars daughter, could not get a tenancy. It may be unrelated but I'm not so sure. I regret not keeping in touch to find out what she did It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc....
A guy who was a pupil at the same time, also very good, is a judge now
kowalski655 said:
Miserablegit said:
Social mobility is, IMHO, the biggest issue at the Bar.
It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc....
This! Even back in the day, it was ever this. Hopefully less so now but I used to instruct a pupil a lot on my smaller cases, she was bloody good but was a vicars daughter, could not get a tenancy. It may be unrelated but I'm not so sure. I regret not keeping in touch to find out what she did It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc....
A guy who was a pupil at the same time, also very good, is a judge now
XCP said:
Why on earth, in this day and age, does one need to go to 'formal dinners' to qualify as a barrister?
You don't. You have to do 12 sessions. A session is anything from a advocacy courses, lectures on legal stuff etc. or.... dinners where students get to meet lots of prominent barristers and judges who many would otherwise never had the chance to meet. My Mrs used to rock up at my flat back in the day absolutely battered after those dinners. She met her eventual head of chambers at one of them too.Terrible hardship...
XCP said:
Still seems bizarre in the 21st century to me. I don't suppose any of these dinners are cheap.
Could be wrong it was 20 years ago but I think the dinners, and the professional development options were free, or at least heavily subsidised by the inns. It's bizarre to me that anyone finds an optional dinner bizarre! If you want a bunch of QC's and judges to turn up in their own time to meet a load of students where else you going to go? Stringfellows is probably frowned on these days.Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 1st July 20:06
25 years ago the dinners weren’t free - I made sure I enjoyed the port to the full.
Dining was actually of very little use to a 21 year old me. Surprisingly, in those days, senior members of the bar wanted to talk to the 21 year old women more…
What was useful was a mentoring system where a senior junior met up with me for lunch on a few occasions and tried to give me some guidance (which I ignored as I knew best of course…)
Times were tough - had a NatWest loan for the course fees and had savings from summer jobs etc.
I was living in a RAABA flat in a dodgy area. Fun times
Dining was actually of very little use to a 21 year old me. Surprisingly, in those days, senior members of the bar wanted to talk to the 21 year old women more…
What was useful was a mentoring system where a senior junior met up with me for lunch on a few occasions and tried to give me some guidance (which I ignored as I knew best of course…)
Times were tough - had a NatWest loan for the course fees and had savings from summer jobs etc.
I was living in a RAABA flat in a dodgy area. Fun times
Edited by Miserablegit on Friday 1st July 20:12
fblm said:
XCP said:
Still seems bizarre in the 21st century to me. I don't suppose any of these dinners are cheap.
Could be wrong it was 20 years ago but I think the dinners, and the professional development options were free, or at least heavily subsidised by the inns. It's bizarre to me that anyone finds an optional dinner bizarre! If you want a bunch of QC's and judges to turn up in their own time to meet a load of students where else you going to go? Stringfellows is probably frowned on these days.Edited by fblm on Friday 1st July 20:06
XCP said:
Still seems bizarre in the 21st century to me. I don't suppose any of these dinners are cheap.
It’s pretty archaic and certainly must seem odd from the outside. The best (least worst) justifications I can offer are that on day one in practice, a freshly hatched very junior barrister may find themselves up against a wizened opponent before an aged judge, and knowing from dining that they are under the skin ordinary people who just happened to have been around longer may reduce the intimidation factor; and if the oldies are to mingle with the youngsters, having a controlled environment where stray hands can be observed and kept in check is no bad thing. As others have said, at the time the main attraction was to be able to get utterly leathered at low cost.
Miserablegit said:
Social mobility is, IMHO, the biggest issue at the Bar.
It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc.
Massive debts from training and no guaranteed salary
- having to wait months, even years to be paid for work. It’s not an option for many people and that’s a bad thing but it’s a self-employed profession. It’s difficult to see how to improve the situation. We offer a significant award but we use it to pick the “best” candidate on paper - I’m not on the pupillage committee as I’d be less interested in mooting skills and more interested to see if a candidate had ever had a part-time job.
I don’t see why sets can’t operate as, in effect, factors for debts, ensuring regular cashflow for barristers, complete with appropriate bad debt insurance etc. The whole system is pretty broken; the idea that every barrister is a sole trader seems pretty odd TBH.It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc.
Massive debts from training and no guaranteed salary
- having to wait months, even years to be paid for work. It’s not an option for many people and that’s a bad thing but it’s a self-employed profession. It’s difficult to see how to improve the situation. We offer a significant award but we use it to pick the “best” candidate on paper - I’m not on the pupillage committee as I’d be less interested in mooting skills and more interested to see if a candidate had ever had a part-time job.
XCP said:
fblm said:
XCP said:
Still seems bizarre in the 21st century to me. I don't suppose any of these dinners are cheap.
Could be wrong it was 20 years ago but I think the dinners, and the professional development options were free, or at least heavily subsidised by the inns. It's bizarre to me that anyone finds an optional dinner bizarre! If you want a bunch of QC's and judges to turn up in their own time to meet a load of students where else you going to go? Stringfellows is probably frowned on these days.Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 1st July 20:06
skwdenyer said:
complete with appropriate bad debt insurance etc.
You would, I suspect, be rendered genuinely speechless if we were to lay out just how ineffectual barristers’ credit control is. It is eye wideningly uncommercial, not least in part because barristers collectively seem willing to roll over when it comes to fees. skwdenyer said:
The whole system is pretty broken; the idea that every barrister is a sole trader seems pretty odd TBH.
The sole trader thing: it stems from the cab rank rule. Barristers, like taxi drivers, aren’t supposed to pick and choose their cases. No matter how hopeless the case or unpleasant the client, the unpleasant client with the hopeless case should be able to instruct the barrister of their choice. This means that you may find yourself instructed in a case with your opponents instructing a fellow member of your chambers.
If barristers in a set were partners with each other, they would be able to decline instructions to act in a matter against another member of their chambers. Similarly if they were all directors of a company. Cuts across the cab rank rule, see?
The cab rank rule is in reality more honoured in the breach, but that’s a different matter.
Why should the unpleasant client with the hopeless case be able to instruct a barrister of their choice? How does this benefit anyone in society?
Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
As a person who would not get legal aid, nor could afford a private barrister what hope would I have if I ended up in Crown Court??
Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
As a person who would not get legal aid, nor could afford a private barrister what hope would I have if I ended up in Crown Court??
XCP said:
Why should the unpleasant client with the hopeless case be able to instruct a barrister of their choice? How does this benefit anyone in society?
Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
Once you give barristers choice, the good ones will refuse bad looking cases and unpleasant clients. Those cases clients then end up only being able to choose their representatives from a small, and arguably second rate pool. Their opponents get to choose from the entire pool. That’s something that society ought to set its face against. Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
Also bear in mind that sometimes unpleasant clients deserve to win, and sometimes cases that appear hopeless at first blush have a redeeming, and perhaps even a winning quality in them that’s not obvious or easy to present.
BlackWidow13 said:
XCP said:
Why should the unpleasant client with the hopeless case be able to instruct a barrister of their choice? How does this benefit anyone in society?
Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
Once you give barristers choice, the good ones will refuse bad looking cases and unpleasant clients. Those cases clients then end up only being able to choose their representatives from a small, and arguably second rate pool. Their opponents get to choose from the entire pool. That’s something that society ought to set its face against. Not being argumentative but I am struggling to see the benefit or fairness.
Also bear in mind that sometimes unpleasant clients deserve to win, and sometimes cases that appear hopeless at first blush have a redeeming, and perhaps even a winning quality in them that’s not obvious or easy to present.
Appreciate you noting the way the sole trader piece works as I was having the same thoughts as skw. I'm sure there are ways that could be modernised. There are plenty of other scenarios where conflicts may be apparent internally, but companies can still take on the work.
The short answer is that “cab rank” is an imperfect shorthand.
On the client side: why shouldn’t the client be able to choose the representation they want? It’s not as if barristers stand in a queue waiting in turn for work. There’s a pool, and clients get to choose from the pool. If they choose me, I am supposed to act for them, unless, eg I’m conflicted (eg because I’m already engaged by the other side or have advised the other side).
The cab rank description is imperfect because it only describes the barrister’s side of the relationship - they can’t choose their punter. But the punter can choose the cab, as they could on a street as opposed to queuing in a rank, because, as I say, barristers don’t wait in an orderly queue for the next piece of work to be doled out.
On the client side: why shouldn’t the client be able to choose the representation they want? It’s not as if barristers stand in a queue waiting in turn for work. There’s a pool, and clients get to choose from the pool. If they choose me, I am supposed to act for them, unless, eg I’m conflicted (eg because I’m already engaged by the other side or have advised the other side).
The cab rank description is imperfect because it only describes the barrister’s side of the relationship - they can’t choose their punter. But the punter can choose the cab, as they could on a street as opposed to queuing in a rank, because, as I say, barristers don’t wait in an orderly queue for the next piece of work to be doled out.
XCP said:
As a person who would not get legal aid, nor could afford a private barrister what hope would I have if I ended up in Crown Court??
Picking up on this, if you really fall in that middle ground of not rush enough and not poor enough, you’re a bit f
ked (at least AIUI; I don’t do criminal work). The practical reality is, I assume, that if it’s not a serious charge you’ll plead and if it is you’ll mortgage your house/kids’ inheritance to get yourself out of trouble. And yes, it’s not right that someone facing a life changing trial should have to take life changing steps to protect their interests. And that’s an argument for a 100% funded defence side of the criminal justice system. Ain’t no Govt likes the sound of that.
I am thankful that I’m a fair way away from this sort of dilemma. The sort of work I do is usually what I call elective litigation, instigated by clients to increase commercial leverage. Some of it is pursuing civil fraud, but even then as the saying goes “negotiation is best carried out with your boot pressing hard on your enemy’s throat”.
BlackWidow13 said:
Once you give barristers choice, the good ones will refuse bad looking cases and unpleasant clients. Those cases clients then end up only being able to choose their representatives from a small, and arguably second rate pool. Their opponents get to choose from the entire pool. That’s something that society ought to set its face against.
Also bear in mind that sometimes unpleasant clients deserve to win, and sometimes cases that appear hopeless at first blush have a redeeming, and perhaps even a winning quality in them that’s not obvious or easy to present.
Can't the barristers effectively select the clients/cases they want by way of setting their hourly rates? e.g.Also bear in mind that sometimes unpleasant clients deserve to win, and sometimes cases that appear hopeless at first blush have a redeeming, and perhaps even a winning quality in them that’s not obvious or easy to present.
Defending a paedophile who is "bang to rights - barrister doesnt want the case and says "Ok, my fee is £1m an hour"
Defending Maria Sharapova in a case which invol;ve slots of informal dinners - Barrister charges 24p
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff