Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
boyse7en said:
The problem with that is that you (and I) depend on a lot of people having a "calling" to do a job that is poorly recompensed or treated – teachers, medical staff, care workers, etc. They know that it is particularly well paid when they go into it, but that doesn't mean that they will put up with any denigration of their role just because they enjoy the job.
If they all left, the employers would have to put the rates up to attract a new cohort anyway!
If they all started to leave in sufficient numbers, I'd pay to get my kids educated (already do as I think the general standards - not all - in state provided education are poor) or pay more for a barrister....If they all left, the employers would have to put the rates up to attract a new cohort anyway!
From the 2021 independent review:
"Essentially for criminal barristers as a whole, and taking for convenience the mid-point in the range, the 2019-20 figures suggest very low fee incomes (post-expenses) in years 1 and 2, rising to around £30,000 after 2 years, which is for a barrister aged around 33, given the evidence that the average age for starting practice is now around 30. At 3 to 7 years, i.e. up to the later 30s, the equivalent figure is around £49,000; for 8-12 years – i.e. moving into one’s 40s – around £60,000; and thereafter broadly flat-lining around £65,000 between years 13 to 27, (i.e. to around 60 years of age;)"
"Essentially for criminal barristers as a whole, and taking for convenience the mid-point in the range, the 2019-20 figures suggest very low fee incomes (post-expenses) in years 1 and 2, rising to around £30,000 after 2 years, which is for a barrister aged around 33, given the evidence that the average age for starting practice is now around 30. At 3 to 7 years, i.e. up to the later 30s, the equivalent figure is around £49,000; for 8-12 years – i.e. moving into one’s 40s – around £60,000; and thereafter broadly flat-lining around £65,000 between years 13 to 27, (i.e. to around 60 years of age;)"
boyse7en said:
The problem with that is that you (and I) depend on a lot of people having a "calling" to do a job that is poorly recompensed or treated – teachers, medical staff, care workers, etc. They know that it is particularly well paid when they go into it, but that doesn't mean that they will put up with any denigration of their role just because they enjoy the job.
If they all left, the employers would have to put the rates up to attract a new cohort anyway!
It depends how people get satisfaction from their jobs. If you wanted me to flip burgers, you’d have to pay me a lot of money to do so, because I have zero interest in flipping burgers. I’d actually do my current job for a lot less than I am being paid because I enjoy it. If they all left, the employers would have to put the rates up to attract a new cohort anyway!
People going into the legal and teaching professions aren’t pressganged into it. They know what is on offer, and they still do it, presumably because they find it interesting. When they stop doing that, the rates will go up.
deckster said:
You could have saved yourself some typing and just said "I couldn't be bothered to read the thread".
I got wrapped up wondering what Volvo car sales people earned tbh, seeing as Vauxhall's are so badly paid (not surprising. I once hired a Corsa).I'm not massively sure any of the posts really covered (including your own informative ones). And I'm equally sure a smart govt (oh well) could find better ways of cross charging to ensure the criminal justice system didn't collapse, even if barristers of all ilks are incapable.
But this is PH. If duplication of posts stopped there'd only be about 20 per day on NP&E (2 of which would be Brexit related). I wonder how much mods get paid?
Murph7355 said:
I'm not massively sure any of the posts really covered (including your own informative ones). And I'm equally sure a smart govt (oh well) could find better ways of cross charging to ensure the criminal justice system didn't collapse, even if barristers of all ilks are incapable.
In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?And why.
rxe said:
It depends how people get satisfaction from their jobs. If you wanted me to flip burgers, you’d have to pay me a lot of money to do so, because I have zero interest in flipping burgers. I’d actually do my current job for a lot less than I am being paid because I enjoy it.
People going into the legal and teaching professions aren’t pressganged into it. They know what is on offer, and they still do it, presumably because they find it interesting. When they stop doing that, the rates will go up.
This is already happening. The number of criminal legal aid firms has halved over recent years. There is a crisis in the criminal justice system with a huge backlog of cases. HMCTS is a basket case. People going into the legal and teaching professions aren’t pressganged into it. They know what is on offer, and they still do it, presumably because they find it interesting. When they stop doing that, the rates will go up.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
asking for a 25% increase when the world is on its knees isn't exactly playing fair is it?
An independent review several years ago recommended an immediate 15% rise, which would have only partially made up past cuts over the years, but government aren't even offering that now, but in a few years, so 25% barely touched the sidesOdd how MPs like independent reviews when it comes to their pay though
Pixelpeep 135 said:
asking for a 25% increase when the world is on its knees isn't exactly playing fair is it?
That depends how underpaid you think they are to start with. 25% doesn't get the juniors up to even close what they could earn in any other legal specialty. For the sake of argument it's like if we all agree doctors are fairly well paid generally but because children don't pay tax we pay pediatric surgeons 1/4 what everyone else gets.fblm said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
asking for a 25% increase when the world is on its knees isn't exactly playing fair is it?
That depends how underpaid you think they are to start with. 25% doesn't get the juniors up to even close what they could earn in any other legal specialty. For the sake of argument it's like if we all agree doctors are fairly well paid generally but because children don't pay tax we pay pediatric surgeons 1/4 what everyone else gets.Training for 5 years, knowing what wage you will have to temporarily earn on the road to the big bucks and then striking because you want your cake and to eat it sounds a bit daft to me.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
fblm said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
asking for a 25% increase when the world is on its knees isn't exactly playing fair is it?
That depends how underpaid you think they are to start with. 25% doesn't get the juniors up to even close what they could earn in any other legal specialty. For the sake of argument it's like if we all agree doctors are fairly well paid generally but because children don't pay tax we pay pediatric surgeons 1/4 what everyone else gets.Training for 5 years, knowing what wage you will have to temporarily earn on the road to the big bucks and then striking because you want your cake and to eat it sounds a bit daft to me.
Senior criminal barristers don't even make "big bucks" for the juniors to look forward to. They are massively underpaid for the job they do at all levels. The irony with saying "well leave then" is that they will earn more leaving the criminal bar and the rest of us will suffer as the backlog grows and criminals will go uncharged and unpunished.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.
But a better paid job in your area of expertise, but with a better employer or application of your skills.Criminal barristers could do that. Leave criminal law and go into better paid disciplines. And many do that. Which is why we have a shortage of criminal barristers...
Pixelpeep 135 said:
Training for 5 years, knowing what wage you will have to temporarily earn on the road to the big bucks and then striking because you want your cake and to eat it sounds a bit daft to me.
You really haven't read the material. The money only gets marginally better because many of the fees in criminal law are fixed so that the state can provide a defence for those accused of crimes but unable to pay for legal representation.Yes, £65k for a barrister with 20+ years experience is pretty poor. Especially since the barristers are self-employed, so this wouldn't include sick pay, a pension, etc etc
The government pay CPS lawyers significantly more, for fewer hours worked, plus all the civil service benefits. So it's hardly a level playing field for defendants.
The government pay CPS lawyers significantly more, for fewer hours worked, plus all the civil service benefits. So it's hardly a level playing field for defendants.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.
And how exactly do you suggest people being paid by the government put their case forward?BlackWidow13 said:
In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?
And why.
The way it's done now?And why.
The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....
a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else
I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.
Worked in a barristers chambers (junior clerk) in the 90’s no-one was earning the figures quoted. One pupil earned £90k in his first year (worked his socks off) and lots earned £m
Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari
That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid
Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari
That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid
Soir said:
Worked in a barristers chambers (junior clerk) in the 90’s no-one was earning the figures quoted. One pupil earned £90k in his first year (worked his socks off) and lots earned £m
Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari
That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid
Which chambers?Senior clerk was on about £150k and this was 25 years ago! A senior clerk from another large Chambers down the road drove a Ferrari
That said, I have no idea what percentage of work was legal aid
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff