Barristers strike over pay

[Ian Geary]

A nursery has to take 3&4 year olds at a rate that doesn't cover costs.

They lose cash on this mandatory work, but supplement it by charging "paid for" child care at a higher rate.


Dentists are reducing the share of NHS work they do, as they can make far more privately than working under the low set rate by the health department.

The difference with law it is seems to be different populations of lawyers who rake in the big bucks, Vs those who support the criminal justice system.

So there is no ability, or incentive, to cross subsidise.


Which strengthens the case for this cross subsidy to be carried out at a national level, by government.


Ultimately, all strikes are popularity contests, with strikers who won the publicity war (NHS doctors) or have the biggest "hold" over the population - tube drivers- coming out best.

Whilst the guardian gnash over the lady who has to represent herself, how big an impact will this really have on Jo/Joanne public?

Very few will understand the issue I think, and the daily mail will be able to get away with painting all lawyers as fat cats on mega bucks.

I'd like to think the government would take this seriously, but then, this problem is several years in the making already.

[biggbn]

Panamax 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....

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

Erm, I was not suggesting that's what they do, if i was not clear i apologise. I was just making a comparison to other threads where that observation was made. I'm no stranger to the inside of a court sadly, not for many years now though.

Edited by biggbn on Monday 27th June 17:51

[so called]

Evanivitch said:

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.

I considered my Silicitor and the Builder were criminals.

[so called]

BlackWidow13 said:

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?

It was the fee for 1 hour meeting at their Offices in Manchester.
All costs were recouped when we won but at the time it was an "OUCH" moment.

[turbobloke]

biggbn said:

Panamax 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....

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

Erm, I was not suggesting that's what they do, if i was not clear i apologise. I was just making a comparison to other threads where that observation was made. I'm no stranger to the inside of a court sadly, not for many years now though.

Online humour is tricky. I was going to suggest they look back and see how fortunate they are...slightly better grades and lawyers could have become a doctor, slightly higher again and they might have been a vet. That would have meant more chance of working with children and animals y'see.

Hardly a serious comment, so I'd better not; then again, humour is necessary at times.

[steveatesh]

BlackWidow13 said:

To answer the bit in bold: no.

Lots of interesting stuff…..

Thanks for that, answers my question nicely.

[Electro1980]

Ian Geary said:

A nursery has to take 3&4 year olds at a rate that doesn't cover costs.

They lose cash on this mandatory work, but supplement it by charging "paid for" child care at a higher rate.


Dentists are reducing the share of NHS work they do, as they can make far more privately than working under the low set rate by the health department.

The difference with law it is seems to be different populations of lawyers who rake in the big bucks, Vs those who support the criminal justice system.

So there is no ability, or incentive, to cross subsidise.

There is no incentive to cross subsidise for dentists or early years really, and quite often it’s done out of a feeling of doing the “right” thing.

Barristers are striking, but dentists and early years settings are taking the other approach that people have suggested, finding other work or shutting down, private work in the case of dentists, early years settings are shutting down.

[anonymous-user]

so called said:

BlackWidow13 said:

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?

It was the fee for 1 hour meeting at their Offices in Manchester.
All costs were recouped when we won but at the time it was an "OUCH" moment.

It’s possible that your barrister spent no time reading in before the meeting and simply rocked up, listened to what you had to say, pronounced a view off the cuff and said faretheewell. If so, that’s shoddy, and your solicitor ought never to have instructed such a chancer in the first place or ought to have queried the work or fee.

It’s perhaps more probable that the fee included time spent reading in and analysing the problem before hand, and if so that your solicitor failed to explain that there was time spent “behind the curtain” so to speak, that you were paying for in addition to the time spent in the meeting.

[so called]

BlackWidow13 said:

so called said:

BlackWidow13 said:

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?

It was the fee for 1 hour meeting at their Offices in Manchester.
All costs were recouped when we won but at the time it was an "OUCH" moment.

It’s possible that your barrister spent no time reading in before the meeting and simply rocked up, listened to what you had to say, pronounced a view off the cuff and said faretheewell. If so, that’s shoddy, and your solicitor ought never to have instructed such a chancer in the first place or ought to have queried the work or fee.

It’s perhaps more probable that the fee included time spent reading in and analysing the problem before hand, and if so that your solicitor failed to explain that there was time spent “behind the curtain” so to speak, that you were paying for in addition to the time spent in the meeting.

Yes, good point, she was fully understanding of the situation we were in.
Lets say only £500/h.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

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

And we already have a shortage.

Court appearances and criminal cases are increasing.

What would PH recommend they work for burger flipping money?

[Gweeds]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/06/27/the-crim...

[Electro1980]

so called said:

Yes, good point, she was fully understanding of the situation we were in.
Lets say only £500/h.

1h meeting probably involves much more than 1h of work. Fees I have seen have been £200-£300/h for employment law specialists (I guess it changes depending on the specialism).

[NuckyThompson]

biggbn said:

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.

That’s the daily mails job mate. The standard stance of these people shouldn’t be asking for a pay rise look what nurses get. Not questioning why nurses are paid so poorly by the government in the first place.

I wonder how much longer they can keep up the pretence that it’s workers and not employers that are the problem once most of the workforce in this country is on strike.

Railway workers and barristers done, teachers incoming, airline staff and NHS workers.

[Electro1980]

NuckyThompson said:

That’s the daily mails job mate. The standard stance of these people shouldn’t be asking for a pay rise look what nurses get. Not questioning why nurses are paid so poorly by the government in the first place.

I wonder how much longer they can keep up the pretence that it’s workers and not employers that are the problem once most of the workforce in this country is on strike.

Railway workers and barristers done, teachers incoming, airline staff and NHS workers.

Plus bus drivers, council workers, university and HE staff. Plus probably many more.

[crankedup5]

I’m surprised that the U.K. still have a few Courts of Law for the profession to work in.Only a few years ago we were busy closing them down to save money. Usual bullste short term mentality.

[ChocolateFrog]

Countdown said:

L1OFF said:

This was my dream job but coming from a working class background (Dad was a Southampton stevedore) sadly was never to be.

Are the barriers to entry that hard? My cousin (northern mill town upbringing, daughter of a taxi driver, went to a Comprehensive rather than the local Grammar school) managed it.

More to the point.

Have higher aspirations man.

[biggbn]

NuckyThompson said:

biggbn said:

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.

That’s the daily mails job mate. The standard stance of these people shouldn’t be asking for a pay rise look what nurses get. Not questioning why nurses are paid so poorly by the government in the first place.

I wonder how much longer they can keep up the pretence that it’s workers and not employers that are the problem once most of the workforce in this country is on strike.

Railway workers and barristers done, teachers incoming, airline staff and NHS workers.

Hear hear man, hear hear...

[Cliftonite]

bhstewie said:

I'm surprised this can be allowed to happen as a consequence.

Woman charged with perverting course of justice told to represent herself in legal first

[ChocolateFrog]

GetCarter said:

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

Not yet

Ballot papers only arrived on the doormat on Saturday.

[Amateurish]

Criminal defence was badly paid 20 years ago when I qualified. Legal aid has been consistently cut since then so I am not at all surprised that people have had enough. The sad fact is that there are no votes in funding the defence of people charged with crimes.