Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
Countdown said:
Can't the barristers effectively select the clients/cases they want by way of setting their hourly rates? e.g.
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
There are many ways to bend the cab rank rule - as I said it is more honoured in the breach. What you suggest is a bit OTT as barrister are supposed to charge a fair fee for their work. But everyone has a legitimate range for their hourly rates, and putting forward a rate right at the very top when you know you’re not the only candidate that the client is looking at for the job can act as a de facto refusal. 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
ETA: to be clear, I’m talking here about privately funded work. Not work where the hourly rate or the fee is dictated by the client, such as work for the Govt, insurers, that sort of thing. Also, for some Govt work (and maybe other work where the fee is dictated by the client - not sure), junior barristers are stuck with the Govt fee but QCs have some wriggle room to get closer to (not necessary near) their private client charge rates.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 2nd July 15:46
BlackWidow13 said:
There are many ways to bend the cab rank rule - as I said it is more honoured in the breach. What you suggest is a bit OTT as barrister are supposed to charge a fair fee for their work. But everyone has a legitimate range for their hourly rates, and putting forward a rate right at the very top when you know you’re not the only candidate that the client is looking at for the job can act as a de facto refusal.
ETA: to be clear, I’m talking here about privately funded work. Not work where the hourly rate or the fee is dictated by the client, such as work for the Govt, insurers, that sort of thing. Also, for some Govt work (and maybe other work where the fee is dictated by the client - not sure), junior barristers are stuck with the Govt fee but QCs have some wriggle room to get closer to (not necessary near) their private client charge rates.
Thanks.ETA: to be clear, I’m talking here about privately funded work. Not work where the hourly rate or the fee is dictated by the client, such as work for the Govt, insurers, that sort of thing. Also, for some Govt work (and maybe other work where the fee is dictated by the client - not sure), junior barristers are stuck with the Govt fee but QCs have some wriggle room to get closer to (not necessary near) their private client charge rates.
Edited by BlackWidow13 on Saturday 2nd July 15:46
In relation to the Govt. funded work, can barristers simply say "no thanks" or is there some kind of contractual obligation for them to take on the work? Could they not just say "Sorry, I'm on leave that week?" or some other excuse?
Countdown said:
Thanks.
In relation to the Govt. funded work, can barristers simply say "no thanks" or is there some kind of contractual obligation for them to take on the work? Could they not just say "Sorry, I'm on leave that week?" or some other excuse?
For civil work where the client is the Govt: there is no overarching contract. To get Govt work in the first place you have to apply to be on a list of approved barristers (aka the Attorney General’s panels, which come in A, B and C form in descending order of seniority). Once you’re on the AG’s panel, which has a degree is prestige, you’ve won the opportunity to be instructed by the Govt with zero guarantees you will be (in practice you will be). You’re expected to make yourself available to take Govt work. In relation to the Govt. funded work, can barristers simply say "no thanks" or is there some kind of contractual obligation for them to take on the work? Could they not just say "Sorry, I'm on leave that week?" or some other excuse?
But this is subject to you not being available, because eg you’re going on holiday or doing another piece of work. That’s true of any client who wants to instruct you though. It is a bit odd to go to the trouble of getting on the AG’s panels then deciding not to take any Govt work.
For criminal work where the Govt is the client - ie prosecution work: don’t know because I don’t do it but the Govt is the principal prosecutor so it’s probably not wise to be too sniffy.
Probably one of the weirder things you'll see today.
https://twitter.com/RugbyBarrister/status/15464185...
https://twitter.com/RugbyBarrister/status/15464185...
rjfp1962 said:
So this suggests their limited industrial actions have not been very successful so far.Most members of the public who haven't ever been involved in the justice system (I am one) won't really understand either the problem, or the impact the industrial action is having. It's just another headline to me, along with all the other "this is really bad" headlines.
The government will only agree when public pressure about acting exceeds inertia. Inertia includes keeping a lid on payrises to avoid cost push inflation, as well as an eye on the existing public sector deficit.
IMO this dispute isn't driven by cost of living issues and is more a compounded structural issue over many years.
But a headline saying "government agrees 25% pay increase for lawyers whilst nurses only get 4%" is going to go down badly.
It is also unfortunately now in the who blinks first stage of industrial relations. If the government meet the lawyer's demands, every other union is going to go for the jugular.
Politicans (which is to say the people chosen by the public) seem to ignore long term issues in favour of short term gain time and again.
Part of their complaint is that the rate changes will only apply to new cases, not ones they're already working on.
Given that some cases can take 5 years between them starting work on a case and it actually being heard in court, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to be paid at appropriate rates for that work.
Their strikes aren't having a massive impact because there are already huge delays in our courts, mainly because of a lack of funding.
Government has tried to blame Covid for the increases, but their own data shows that the number of pending cases was already increasing before lockdown - https://twitter.com/sdavieslaw/status/156062850801...
Given that some cases can take 5 years between them starting work on a case and it actually being heard in court, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to be paid at appropriate rates for that work.
Their strikes aren't having a massive impact because there are already huge delays in our courts, mainly because of a lack of funding.
Government has tried to blame Covid for the increases, but their own data shows that the number of pending cases was already increasing before lockdown - https://twitter.com/sdavieslaw/status/156062850801...
10 years between offence and possible trial - https://twitter.com/CourtsIdle/status/156051908141...
On Friday, 41% of courts were not sitting (usually due to lack of judges/magistrates because there's no funding to operate) - https://twitter.com/Court_Stats/status/15605370604...
On Friday, 41% of courts were not sitting (usually due to lack of judges/magistrates because there's no funding to operate) - https://twitter.com/Court_Stats/status/15605370604...
rscott said:
10 years between offence and possible trial - https://twitter.com/CourtsIdle/status/156051908141... ...
On the face of it that seems shocking...But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
Murph7355 said:
On the face of it that seems shocking...
But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
You think it’s acceptable that someone has their life on hold for that long? Never mind the 10 years, but the 3 from arrest to the CPS accepting the case? It doesn’t matter what has happened that is unacceptable and our justice system is completely broken.But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Electro1980 said:
You think it’s acceptable that someone has their life on hold for that long? Never mind the 10 years, but the 3 from arrest to the CPS accepting the case? It doesn’t matter what has happened that is unacceptable and our justice system is completely broken.
In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Former acquaintance, 15 months between charges (3) and trial, first trial jury were dismissed, retrial 5 months later, not guilty on 1, no verdict on 2. No idea if CPS are pushing for new trial on outstanding 2. Don't know if he can return to work in September, innocent or not...In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Electro1980 said:
Murph7355 said:
On the face of it that seems shocking...
But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
You think it’s acceptable that someone has their life on hold for that long? Never mind the 10 years, but the 3 from arrest to the CPS accepting the case? It doesn’t matter what has happened that is unacceptable and our justice system is completely broken.But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Murph7355 said:
Electro1980 said:
Murph7355 said:
On the face of it that seems shocking...
But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
You think it’s acceptable that someone has their life on hold for that long? Never mind the 10 years, but the 3 from arrest to the CPS accepting the case? It doesn’t matter what has happened that is unacceptable and our justice system is completely broken.But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Or this one - https://twitter.com/T13CDB/status/1554056862282178...
Case adjourned until 2023 because the court building is unusable. The barrister who had been dealing with the case is unavailable on the new proposed date, so has to pass the case on to someone else, meaning he won't get paid for any of the prep work he's done.
Murph7355 said:
Electro1980 said:
Murph7355 said:
On the face of it that seems shocking...
But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
You think it’s acceptable that someone has their life on hold for that long? Never mind the 10 years, but the 3 from arrest to the CPS accepting the case? It doesn’t matter what has happened that is unacceptable and our justice system is completely broken.But when you read it, it looks like there were a couple of retrials.
And I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal. And if not, whether the specific trial itself involved something that prompted that time frame.
Something with the way that set of tweets has been posted doesn't seem right.
In that case there is only one re-trial, and even that it’s too long.
Ian Geary said:
rjfp1962 said:
So this suggests their limited industrial actions have not been very successful so far.Most members of the public who haven't ever been involved in the justice system (I am one) won't really understand either the problem, or the impact the industrial action is having. It's just another headline to me, along with all the other "this is really bad" headlines.
The government will only agree when public pressure about acting exceeds inertia. Inertia includes keeping a lid on payrises to avoid cost push inflation, as well as an eye on the existing public sector deficit.
IMO this dispute isn't driven by cost of living issues and is more a compounded structural issue over many years.
But a headline saying "government agrees 25% pay increase for lawyers whilst nurses only get 4%" is going to go down badly.
It is also unfortunately now in the who blinks first stage of industrial relations. If the government meet the lawyer's demands, every other union is going to go for the jugular.
Politicans (which is to say the people chosen by the public) seem to ignore long term issues in favour of short term gain time and again.
skwdenyer said:
I think that delays like that should mean an automatic acquittal. Justice delayed is justice denied. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in many grown-up constitutions. If the Crown can't mount a case in 3 years, that's just tough on the Crown in my book.
A sure way of encouraging more delaying tactics by the guilty!Murph7355 said:
I wonder if 3yrs between arrest and "charge authorised" (not sure what that means) is normal.
It's not normal.But a couple of years between arrest and eventual charge is not uncommon at all.
In fact, that sort of delay is routine in cases where the police have to refer phones or computers for forensic interrogation. Offences of supplying drugs, online grooming, indecent images cases etc often take a couple of years between initial arrest and first appearance in court.
It didn't used to be like this. It's purely a result of inadequate resources caused by cuts.
Then, once it gets to court, further delays are caused as a result of a system that has broken down because of lack of funding.
And all the while, those idiots in Westminster are arguing with each other about who will cut taxes the most.
The chap I instructed 10 years ago charged me 1500 a day, at the end of the case in the bar opposite the court having a celebratory drink, he showed me the pics of his new aston, his aeroplane and his second much younger very attractive wife, I though to myself, "wish I'd stuck in a bit more at school"
So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
dingg said:
The chap I instructed 10 years ago charged me 1500 a day, at the end of the case in the bar opposite the court having a celebratory drink, he showed me the pics of his new aston, his aeroplane and his second much younger very attractive wife, I though to myself, "wish I'd stuck in a bit more at school"
So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
What criminal charges were you on?So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff