Barristers strike over pay

[Evanivitch]

pquinn said:

The way some people moan you'd think they'd been press-ganged into a career...

It's a fair point, any many of the people could probably find employment in better paid sections of their industry.

And then society would begin to crumble as we'd have no way to fairly process those accused of crimes. As it is, the backlog is 50,000+ cases.

[deckster]

steveatesh said:

So for clarity, does this mean that experienced and relatively well paid lawyers who have already gone through what you describe then do the same to new starters, knowing how hard it was for themselves?

If so how can they morally defend that (especially without LA!) ? Surely they could employ them instead of taking advantage of them like vultures? Or is there something in place to stop that?

If it’s as bad as you describe I imagine fewer and fewer people will chose Law as a career, do you know if that’s actually happening? Genuine questions no criticism or sarcasm.

To be clear, it's not as simple as "nasty old lawyers making young lawyers suffer" (I think the medical profession wins on that front).

And it's not just young lawyers. It's the way that criminal law is funded, specifically the piece rates paid for legal aid work. Law remains a very popular subject to study but the issue is that (in large part due to the money) not many of them want to go into criminal law. Most will be looking to go into corporate law, ideally with a big London firm, as that's where the money is and you can quite easily earn 10x what a criminal lawyer will get paid. Which is the issue: why would you go into the courts to earn a pittance when you have other, hugely more lucrative, options? And if all the good graduates go elsewhere, who is left to defend those who need defending? We need to make criminal law attractive to the best lawyers, and that's not going to happen when you can barely scrape a living doing the job.

Edited to add: From the same page you got the previous table from, this illustrates the real issue:

Edited by deckster on Monday 27th June 16:18

[foxbody-87]

Three pages and no mention of how much a barristers pay is in nurses per care worker?

[Louis Balfour]

All of this probably explains why Breadvan72 went missing. Not banned, instead busking for a few coppers to supplement his bar income.

[julian64]

GetCarter said:

Just so we all know the facts:

Training to be a criminal barrister: 5 years.

Cost of bar course: c.£13,000

Median annual income for juniors in first 3 years:

£12,200

Is that actually genuine though, because even the juniors I bash into seem reasonably flush, reasonable cars, getting on the mortgage ladder.
None of that would be possible with an income of 12K per year so something doesn't add up.

And to be honest lawyers older than me are giving the impression of being seriously loaded in comparison to me, so I feel that although you may be factually correct ,it isn't the full story

[anonymous-user]

steveatesh said:

So for clarity, does this mean that experienced and relatively well paid lawyers who have already gone through what you describe then do the same to new starters, knowing how hard it was for themselves?

If so how can they morally defend that (especially without LA!) ? Surely they could employ them instead of taking advantage of them like vultures? Or is there something in place to stop that?

If it’s as bad as you describe I imagine fewer and fewer people will chose Law as a career, do you know if that’s actually happening? Genuine questions no criticism or sarcasm.

Edited to add a quick Google showed a ratio of 28:1 graduates for every vacancy in 2019, no idea if it’s changed since then.

Also in 2019 20,905 students were accepted onto the course (14,520 are female and 6,370 are male).

Pay reported here https://www.thelawyerportal.com/careers/deciding-o... was:

Edited by steveatesh on Monday 27th June 15:59

To answer the bit in bold: no.

Barristers in private practice are all self employed. As a matter of professional regulation. No limited companies, no partnerships, no employer/employee stuff.

They group together in groups (sets of chambers) to share the costs of accommodation and administration. They end up - collectively - employing other people (receptionists, clerks) and can use a limited company to run certain parts of the administration side of chambers. But their core practice as barristers is something they do as a self employed person.

When you start, you’re offered a place in a set of chambers (a tenancy). This is an opportunity to work for yourself under a collective brand. There can be some exploitation of very junior members, but not in the way you’re suggesting.

Self employed obviously means you eat what you kill after you’ve covered the costs of killing it. In some specialist commercial sets new starters will bill six figures in their first year, usually working long hours playing the role of third spear carrier from the left in pieces of large commercial litigation. Cases like that have very well funded clients willing to throw money at lawyers for perceived commercial advantage.

The criminal bar isn’t like that.

Most criminals don’t have a lot of money. And their cases are pretty simple, short affairs. So no mega litigation for Spendy McSpender.

Pretty obviously in a civilised country it is in everyone’s interests that an accused has a fair trial. That means competent legal representation for defendants. Who don’t have a lot of money.

There’s the bind. The Govt has to fund both the prosecution and the defence in most criminal matters. The Govt pays rock bottom rates to its own lawyers. Easy to see that it will pay as little as it can get away with to its opponents’ lawyers.

So for years the legal aid that’s been available for criminal defendants has been steadily eroded. There’s a mindset in Govt that the work of being a barrister involves turning up and talking. No more than that - no planning, no thought. So legal aid (and to a degree prosecution work) pays along these lines.

In the olden days if you could get through the early years there was good money to be made available at the top of the criminal bar. No more. Lots of criminal barristers now do some other type of work (eg regulatory stuff) as well to make a living. Plenty just get out.

FWIW, the Govt uses barristers in civil litigation as well. And it pays appallingly badly compared to what private clients will pay, and (I think) hasn’t adjusted its rates in something like 15 years.

TL;DR: low earnings at the criminal bar are not set by established practitioners at the criminal bar. They are set by the Govt, and successive Govts have consistently tried to erode payments to lawyers acting for defendants accused of crimes.

[Countdown]

steveatesh said:

Also in 2019 20,905 students were accepted onto the course (14,520 are female and 6,370 are male).

Pay reported here https://www.thelawyerportal.com/careers/deciding-o... was:

Edited by steveatesh on Monday 27th June 15:59

Speaking as somebody who has members of the family who are Solicitors and Barristers I think the figures above are somewhat optimistic

Somebody with 5 years PQE would be on £50k-£60k in my experience. they'd probably be Head of Department in a regional practice or £40k if they worked for the Local Authority.

Edited by Countdown on Monday 27th June 16:34

[GetCarter]

julian64 said:

GetCarter said:

Just so we all know the facts:

Training to be a criminal barrister: 5 years.

Cost of bar course: c.£13,000

Median annual income for juniors in first 3 years:

£12,200

Is that actually genuine though, because even the juniors I bash into seem reasonably flush, reasonable cars, getting on the mortgage ladder.
None of that would be possible with an income of 12K per year so something doesn't add up.

And to be honest lawyers older than me are giving the impression of being seriously loaded in comparison to me, so I feel that although you may be factually correct ,it isn't the full story

Please will everybody note the difference between criminal and commercial barristers!

Edited by GetCarter on Monday 27th June 17:09

[so called]

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

[Evanivitch]

so called said:

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

What crime were you accused of?

[deckster]

Evanivitch said:

so called said:

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

What crime were you accused of?

Posting context-free irrelevant anecdotes in a serious thread

[so called]

Evanivitch said:

so called said:

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

What crime were you accused of?

I was suing my Solicitor and the house builder.

The Barrister told me we had a strong case but it still depended what side of the bed the Judge got out of that day.....GREAT.

(We won)

[biggbn]

Wonder why nobody has posted a suggestion that they just work harder and get a better paid job if they don't like it? That was suggested several times on other strike threads....

[Panamax]

biggbn said:

Wonder why nobody has posted a suggestion that they just work harder and get a better paid job if they don't like it? That was suggested several times on other strike threads....

No doubt you'll remember that when you find yourself unexpectedly in court without legal representation.

[deckster]

biggbn said:

Wonder why nobody has posted a suggestion that they just work harder and get a better paid job if they don't like it? That was suggested several times on other strike threads....

It is a reasonable question, but I'm afraid the answer isn't anything to do with class snobbery.

It's that there is a very real issue with attracting incomers to the profession, and with those currently there leaving. And if there aren't any barristers to argue cases in court, our justice system will collapse. Leaving to get a better paid job is exactly what junior barristers are currently doing and exactly what we want to stop.

Whereas last time it was discussed, I understood that becoming a train driver was a hotly contested process as the roles are highly sought after. There is no shortage of train drivers and no shortage of people wanting to become train drivers.

[Evanivitch]

so called said:

Evanivitch said:

so called said:

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

What crime were you accused of?

I was suing my Solicitor and the house builder.

The Barrister told me we had a strong case but it still depended what side of the bed the Judge got out of that day.....GREAT.

(We won)

So entirely irrelevant to a thread on criminal barrister's pay.

[GetCarter]

I'm sure some people in here think train drivers have been on strike.

[anonymous-user]

so called said:

I remember paying a Barrister £1000/hour + VAT in 2006.

That sounds high even for a QC in 2006. Was that a fee for a hearing, which you converted to an hourly rate based on how long the hearing was?

[Seventy]

BlackWidow13 said:

Lots of easily comprehensible stuff.

Thanks for that, much appreciated.

[biggbn]

deckster said:

biggbn said:

Wonder why nobody has posted a suggestion that they just work harder and get a better paid job if they don't like it? That was suggested several times on other strike threads....

It is a reasonable question, but I'm afraid the answer isn't anything to do with class snobbery.

It's that there is a very real issue with attracting incomers to the profession, and with those currently there leaving. And if there aren't any barristers to argue cases in court, our justice system will collapse. Leaving to get a better paid job is exactly what junior barristers are currently doing and exactly what we want to stop.

Whereas last time it was discussed, I understood that becoming a train driver was a hotly contested process as the roles are highly sought after. There is no shortage of train drivers and no shortage of people wanting to become train drivers.

Thanks for this. There are many similarities aren't there? No doubt someone will post an average wage for a barrister that is grossly inflated and doesn't take into account the years of training and relatively low income. Sadly, wages in general are lagging behind living costs, and that goes for most industries, nobody thinks of 'trainee' lawyers, doctors etc and always jumps to the 80k a year plus argument.