Ambulance Chasers go on strike (well not really)

[anonymous-user]

We are looking at possibles and probables, not definites, as with most areas of public policy. The system is already under strain It has been pared down again and again (this is not the first reform). If the good people leave, and only the duffers stay, the system may make more and more errors. In the US, appeal courts are clogged by appeals arising from the incompetence of the underpaid and under skilled public defenders.

Also, the guilty crim may be able to win an appeal because of errors at trial that would not have occurred if his defender had been competent. Having both sides well represented is in the public interest. That way fewer innocent people are potted, and fewer guilty people get second chances based on cock ups at trial

In the civil courts, the erosion of legal aid has produced a crop of litigants in person who clog the courts with stupid cases and make the system slow down and cost more to run.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th January 10:47

[Willy Nilly]

Breadvan72 said:

www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/assess-your-clients-e...


See pages 91 ff of this doc for more detail:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/elig...

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 8th January 09:55

It seems us wealthy tractor drivers are just too darned rich to qualify.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

It seems us wealthy tractor drivers are just too darned rich to qualify.

That sucks, IMO. No so long ago, almost everyone would get at least some criminal legal aid, but the rules changed a while back.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Some litigants in person do get quite good, but most go around in circles, and many are loons and troublemakers. There is a pathology of the vexatious litigant, and they have always been with us, but nowadays their ranks are supplemented by ordinary Joe Bloke, adrift in the legal sea.

Should the law be simpler? Yes, but have you seen how complex our society has become? Note also legislative incontinence, discussed above.

[Countdown]

Bill said:

eccles said:

I really don't see what the fuss is about. Going into Law is voluntary, no one is forcing you into it, and part of that choice is researching expected income. Who says just because you've done a lot of training you are entitled to a large salary? Market forces or your skill levels dictate your income just like any job.

The market forces are being skewed by the government's desire to pay less, not some free market effect of over supply or the simplicity of the job.

I think, in this case, there would be a much smaller "market" if it wasn't for Legal Aid. The distortion is being caused by the Government getting involved in the first place

[anonymous-user]

Bill said:

The market forces are being skewed by the government's desire to pay less, not some free market effect of over supply or the simplicity of the job.

Austerity is all well and good, but if the end result is the failure of the criminal justice system I'd say it was a false economy.

The criminal justice system failed the public a long time ago.

No false economy here just prudent trimming of excess cost.

[Chlamydia]

Barristers etc are a group that most of us love to hate, but if I ever need one I'd definitely want one that's well-paid and happy in their job.

[anonymous-user]

If you have a broken or damaged system, why make it worse? I don't accept that it is broken, although it is damaged. Giving up and saying why bother is hardly the sign of good Government.

[eccles]

Breadvan72 said:

We are looking at possibles and probables, not definites, as with most areas of public policy. The system is already under strain It has been pared down again and again (this is not the first reform). If the good people leave, and only the duffers stay, the system may make more and more errors. In the US, appeal courts are clogged by appeals arising from the incompetence of the underpaid and under skilled public defenders.

Also, the guilty crim may be able to win an appeal because of errors at trial that would not have occurred if his defender had been competent. Having both sides well represented is in the public interest. That way fewer innocent people are potted, and fewer guilty people get second chances based on cock ups at trial

In the civil courts, the erosion of legal aid has produced a crop of litigants in person who clog the courts with stupid cases and make the system slow down and cost more to run.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 8th January 10:47

Surely if a crap lawyer type makes mistakes, or does his job so poorly that the verdict gets overturned on appeal there must be some sort of sanctions taken against them? Surely they can't just keep their fees and wend merrily on their way to the next poor sap?

[anonymous-user]

OK, so the lawyer gets done over, but meanwhile what about all the court and prosecutor and police costs wasted? Recover them from the lawyer? Er, he/she hasn't got enough money to cover the costs because he/she isn't paid much.

Ban the lawyer for being duff? OK, now you have even fewer not very good lawyers to do the work, and the system gets slower.

[pork911]

Countdown said:

Bill said:

eccles said:

I really don't see what the fuss is about. Going into Law is voluntary, no one is forcing you into it, and part of that choice is researching expected income. Who says just because you've done a lot of training you are entitled to a large salary? Market forces or your skill levels dictate your income just like any job.

The market forces are being skewed by the government's desire to pay less, not some free market effect of over supply or the simplicity of the job.

I think, in this case, there would be a much smaller "market" if it wasn't for Legal Aid. The distortion is being caused by the Government getting involved in the first place

Access to justice aside, If the government's policies in the last year had any similar effect on any other sector of even private industry there would be absolute uproar. Because it's seen as just solicitors and barristers no one cares. That's fine, no one goes into law to be liked (or if they do they're misguided) but there are many non-golf playing support staff who have and are going to be screwed.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

OK, so the lawyer gets done over, but meanwhile what about all the court and prosecutor and police costs wasted? Recover them from the lawyer? Er, he/she hasn't got enough money to cover the costs because he/she isn't paid much.

Ban the lawyer for being duff? OK, now you have even fewer not very good lawyers to do the work, and the system gets slower.

Disbarment or whatever our equivalent is would seem sufficient.

Your previous suggestion of simplifying the law, while being as difficult as it is radical, is probably the next step to take.

[Bill]

Countdown said:

I think, in this case, there would be a much smaller "market" if it wasn't for Legal Aid. The distortion is being caused by the Government getting involved in the first place

So how do people who can't afford it get representation in court?

[eccles]

Breadvan72 said:

OK, so the lawyer gets done over, but meanwhile what about all the court and prosecutor and police costs wasted? Recover them from the lawyer? Er, he/she hasn't got enough money to cover the costs because he/she isn't paid much.

Ban the lawyer for being duff? OK, now you have even fewer not very good lawyers to do the work, and the system gets slower.

I'd have thought some sort of insurance against being crap could be obtainable also if one gets kicked out/disbarred that could work as an incentive for others to do their job to an acceptable standard.
Doing a crap job because the branch of a profession you've chosen to go into doesn't pay well shouldn't be an excuse.

[anonymous-user]

A simple change to the cjs, which would massively reduce costs and incompetence would be to move the timeline for a reduced sentence due to guilty plea.

Make this be entered into at the time the cps send the case for trial, along with the requirement to request a newton hearing if you wish to enter a basis of plea. If the newton hearing goes against you, no reduction in sentence is applied.

Sentencing in absentia, should the defendant not turn up to court can be brought in on the back of the above.

In my limited experience you've just removed half the cjs court time, and expenses of getting there. Cheaper for the victims, the cps, and the defence lawyer.

[anonymous-user]

Bill said:

So how do people who can't afford it get representation in court?

They can avoid the need to by stopping committing crime?

It mostly the same people over and over, so maybe we put a life time limit on 3 cases, after which, no legal aid.

[Countdown]

Bill said:

Countdown said:

I think, in this case, there would be a much smaller "market" if it wasn't for Legal Aid. The distortion is being caused by the Government getting involved in the first place

So how do people who can't afford it get representation in court?

I don't disagree that there should be "some" form of Legal Aid. However I get the impression that people are suggesting we absolutely need a "BUPA" level of Legal AId rather than NHS as providing it "on the cheap" will cause other complications. You could argue the same about education, or healthcare; that not providing a world-class service will have major implications on peoples lives.

However the sad fact of the matter is there is only so much money to go round and it needs to be prioritised. I accept that those on LA will probably get a poorer level of service - that's no different to people having to put up with NHS care or State education.

[anonymous-user]

I am not arguing for BUPAlaw, but the danger is that what is offered is much worse than NHSlaw. Would people think that it would be OK for the NHS to have all the crap doctors while the good ones coin it in the private market?

[Jasandjules]

You get what you pay for.

And the day anyone is falsely accused of a serious crime, they will be grateful that someone is willing to get paid s**e money to stand up and defend them.

Do we really want substandard lawyers doing this? People's lives and careers are at stake.

[eccles]

Jasandjules said:

You get what you pay for.

And the day anyone is falsely accused of a serious crime, they will be grateful that someone is willing to get paid s**e money to stand up and defend them.

Do we really want substandard lawyers doing this? People's lives and careers are at stake.

Substandard lawyers shouldn't be doing anything!