Barristers

[BigColSutherland]

Lawyers are never going to win any popularity contests, but we have to be aware that there is an insidious way in which governments seek to devalue important professions that rely on public sector money in order to suit their political/ideological agenda. Consider the way in which social workers or teachers have become demoralised in this way. Meanwhile, MPs - who not that long ago were caught with their hands in the till and were widely abusing their expenses system - have awarded themselves an 11% pay rise.

Point of order - MPs didn't award themselves this. IPSA did. Who are independent of MPs.

There is of course the argument that if you pay a profession such as MPs more you may attract a better quality of candidate - the kind who wouldn't give in to the delights of the till.

[Filo]

NWNF is not the simple answer. Instead, it is an over-simplification of a much more complex issue.

The defendant with a low prospect of success will be ignored by a lawyer in favour of someone whose case can be run with a better prospect of success. The knock on effect will be that defendant who doesn't get representation will be viewed by Magistrates as someone that even the lawyers have already judged to be guilty!

What if the defendant is guilty and therefore they have "lost"? No fee for the lawyer. What about the sentence? How on earth does NWNF work when then going on to plead mitigation in respect of a sentence or when seeking the correct kind of sentence or pre-sentence report for their mentally-ill / drug-addicted client?

I'm not saying no win no fee is the total answer, but it could be a big part of the solution. Work could be done on a pro bono basis as well for the 'difficult' cases. Lord knows solicitors and barristers make a very healthy living. What's wrong with them giving some of their overpaid time back to society for free? What about representing yourself? That's what I would do if ever I was in that situation. I'm sure I could do a better job than any solicitor or barrister who only have pound signs in their eyes.

Like I said before, the best solution is to be a law abiding citizen. OK so people with mental health issues need a bit more help. I would not be averse to them getting financial help if the greedy lawyers would not do it pro bono. As for drug addicts forget it. They've brought their own problems on themselves and must take the consequences.

On a bigger point. Do you know that 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of the criminals? What's the solution I hear you ask? Lock the lot of them up for life and all of a sudden we don't have the need for such an expensive legal system. Sorted.

So why are encouraging people to deceive on the other thread regarding guitar lessons?

[Curious Orange]

Point of order - MPs didn't award themselves this. IPSA did. Who are independent of MPs.

There is of course the argument that if you pay a profession such as MPs more you may attract a better quality of candidate - the kind who wouldn't give in to the delights of the till.

Duly noted, they accepted the pay rise.

[Curious Orange]

NWNF is not the simple answer. Instead, it is an over-simplification of a much more complex issue.

The defendant with a low prospect of success will be ignored by a lawyer in favour of someone whose case can be run with a better prospect of success. The knock on effect will be that defendant who doesn't get representation will be viewed by Magistrates as someone that even the lawyers have already judged to be guilty!

What if the defendant is guilty and therefore they have "lost"? No fee for the lawyer. What about the sentence? How on earth does NWNF work when then going on to plead mitigation in respect of a sentence or when seeking the correct kind of sentence or pre-sentence report for their mentally-ill / drug-addicted client?

I'm not saying no win no fee is the total answer, but it could be a big part of the solution. Work could be done on a pro bono basis as well for the 'difficult' cases. Lord knows solicitors and barristers make a very healthy living. What's wrong with them giving some of their overpaid time back to society for free? What about representing yourself? That's what I would do if ever I was in that situation. I'm sure I could do a better job than any solicitor or barrister who only have pound signs in their eyes.

Like I said before, the best solution is to be a law abiding citizen. OK so people with mental health issues need a bit more help. I would not be averse to them getting financial help if the greedy lawyers would not do it pro bono. As for drug addicts forget it. They've brought their own problems on themselves and must take the consequences.

On a bigger point. Do you know that 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of the criminals? What's the solution I hear you ask? Lock the lot of them up for life and all of a sudden we don't have the need for such an expensive legal system. Sorted.

Good luck building that extension on your house or performing your own surgery when one of those overpaid professionals won't do it as a freebee. You could do much better and you don't even need training.

On your bigger point, and by way of comparison, the US's huge prison population does seem to have cleared their streets of all of the criminals. But why go to the expense of housing these career criminals when a cheaper but more grisly solution is available...

[IC1967]

On your bigger point, and by way of comparison, the US's huge prison population does seem to have cleared their streets of all of the criminals. But why go to the expense of housing these career criminals when a cheaper but more grisly solution is available...

I'd be all for the grisly solution. Unfortunately I am not the ruler of the country so it won't ever happen.