Barristers

[BigColSutherland]

I see Barristers have staged a second walkout today ove legal aid cuts.

I fully support them, but it's a tough sell for them.

[roversdude]

Only one I really know is no longer practising not sure if still on board of rovers

[BigColSutherland]

Do you mean Beresford? He was a solicitor I think, not a barrister.

[redwine]

Oh no where will I get my latte from now

[jucyberry]

The cuts to legal aid are frankly frightening, we are heading towards a state of affairs where only the wealthy will be able to pursue justice.

[Dagenham Rover]

The cuts to legal aid are frankly frightening, we are heading towards a state of affairs where only the wealthy will be able to pursue justice.

and that no doubt is the intention!

[StocktonRover]

The cuts to legal aid are frankly frightening, we are heading towards a state of affairs where only the wealthy will be able to pursue justice.

and that no doubt is the intention!

There is another side to that argument as well though, why should we be footing the bill for some convicted nut case to fight a pointless human rights / whimsical case because he/she's got nothing better to do whilst serving their life sentence.

Do we want to see tens of thousands spent on a case about whether a prison issue pillow is too hard / soft?
In my opinion, some barristers don't give a shit about right and wrong, just about how much they can make out of a case - why else would they indulge these nut cases?

[Dagenham Rover]

The cuts to legal aid are frankly frightening, we are heading towards a state of affairs where only the wealthy will be able to pursue justice.

and that no doubt is the intention!

There is another side to that argument as well though, why should we be footing the bill for some convicted nut case to fight a pointless human rights / whimsical case because he/she's got nothing better to do whilst serving their life sentence.

Do we want to see tens of thousands spent on a case about whether a prison issue pillow is too hard / soft?
In my opinion, some barristers don't give a shit about right and wrong, just about how much they can make out of a case - why else would they indulge these nut cases?

and that bit is a big part of the problem  part of the I want, i want, i want right now society,
 but I don't want to work for it, top to bottom or bottom to top either way I must have it now!

What do we do about it I'm not sure legal aid needs to be sorted, but yet again not how this lot are going about it, there must be some way of stopping the nutters trying to claim it.........oh yeh common sense .......

[jucyberry]

The cuts to legal aid are frankly frightening, we are heading towards a state of affairs where only the wealthy will be able to pursue justice.

and that no doubt is the intention!

There is another side to that argument as well though, why should we be footing the bill for some convicted nut case to fight a pointless human rights / whimsical case because he/she's got nothing better to do whilst serving their life sentence.

Do we want to see tens of thousands spent on a case about whether a prison issue pillow is too hard / soft?
In my opinion, some barristers don't give a shit about right and wrong, just about how much they can make out of a case - why else would they indulge these nut cases?

But what about all those hundreds upon hundreds of people who aren't 'nutters' but do need legal support? What happens to justice for them, for the victims who can't afford to pay huge legal bills? They will outnumber the headline grabbing nonsense cases many times over.

Removing legal aid will only be the beginning.

[jucyberry]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiEwyKeIcAIYo9l.jpg:large

[Savvy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiEwyKeIcAIYo9l.jpg:large

Check out the recent changes in employment law Juicy and you'll see that the right to have your day in court is becoming a thing of the past!!!

[IC1967]

Barristers are well overpaid. Anything that cuts their salaries is fine by me.

Also, Legal Aid needs to be cut because we are broke. We can't afford it anymore. Anyway the current system is a farce. Anyone that is not 'poor' doesn't get it.

Our legal system is a joke. Only the rich and the poor can use it properly. I don't want my tax helping the poor get justice when if it was me in the dock I wouldn't get any help.

Best thing to do is what I do. Be a law abiding citizen and you will have no need for Legal Aid.

[jucyberry]

http://jerryhayes.co.uk/posts/2014/03/08/is-chris-grayling-a-sociopath

As many people can attest, sometimes being law abiding makes very little difference.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Debs

Yeah, but that's Jerry Hayes, the well known far left loony...

[swifty50]

Legal aid, as been withdrawn from family law, in one case, a parent who was unemployed, was told to sell their house, to help with legal fees.

[jucyberry]

So true BST, so true.......

Only a fool would be so complacent as to think they could go through out their lives being secure in their ability to be law abiding.

Things happen... Accidents, injuries, being duped, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.....it happens. probably more than we think..

If that day came and you needed it, wouldn't you want the same service from the law? Not the second class one that Grayling thinks those who cannot afford high fees deserve.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Debs.

Bang on. For example, one day you could be fitted up by the police for riot. A second class barrister might suggest that you plead guilty and perhaps only get 5 years. A first class one like Vera Baird or Michael Mansfield might be able to systematically uncover lies and fabrication in the evidence, leading to the collapse of the trial.

[jucyberry]

 Why don't you just plead guilty, they will go much easier on you, you'll only get a suspended....Yes, I know you didn't do it but this way they....


Michael Mansfield is a hero of mine. I think he is wonderful.

[IC1967]

Look there's a very simple solution. It's called no win no fee. Currently there is far too much money going to barristers whether they win the case or not. No win no fee would lead to far less pointless cases being tried. Sorted.

[Filo]

Look there's a very simple solution. It's called no win no fee. Currently there is far too much money going to barristers whether they win the case or not. No win no fee would lead to far less pointless cases being tried. Sorted.

Your talking very stupid again, no win no fee, don't make me laugh! If there's the remotest possablity that the case will be lost a lawyer won't touch it with a bargepole!

[IC1967]

Get rid of Legal Aid and I think you would find they would become less risk averse.   

[silent majority]

No win no fee only works when compensation is at stake.

[RedJ]

Look there's a very simple solution. It's called no win no fee. Currently there is far too much money going to barristers whether they win the case or not. No win no fee would lead to far less pointless cases being tried. Sorted.

You do realise there still is some fee involved with no win no fee, don't you?

[Filo]

No win no fee only works when compensation is at stake.

Even then it doesn't always work, I had a solicitor take a case on for me regarding my Dad dying from an asbestos related illness, we had a pathologists report confirming Asbestos fibres were present in his lung tissue samples, we went to the inquest where the pathologist stated on oath his findings and the Coroner recorded a verdict of Death by industrial disease, he had lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, crucially not mesathelioma. Lung cancer through exposure to asbestos wasn't enough for the company's lawyer or insurance company, even though we had a pathologist report and an inquest ruling in our favour. The insurance company insisted we send his lung tissue samples to America for a full count of asbestos particles at a cost of around £8k, we didn't have that kind of money and our lawyer dropped us like a ton of bricks, because they did that no other legal firms were prepared to take on our case, my dad worked for 30 years in a shipyard and paid for it with an early death, we got no compensation at all because the lawyers only want cases with zero risk!

[IC1967]

Very sorry to hear about your dad. My father in law had a very similar problem so I know what you and your family must have gone through.

My point is that if Legal Aid is got rid of then solicitors will take on more risky cases on a no win no fee basis. They will have to or they will all go out of business.

[BigColSutherland]

Is there a feeling that barristers are currently overpaid? (not solicitors, barristers)

[Curious Orange]

My point is that if Legal Aid is got rid of then solicitors will take on more risky cases on a no win no fee basis. They will have to or they will all go out of business.

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?

[Curious Orange]

Is there a feeling that barristers are currently overpaid? (not solicitors, barristers)

Going back to the original point of the post for a moment - that criminal barristers were protesting against the further legal aid cuts proposed - it should be noted that there has been a 20% reduction (£264m) in the overall criminal legal aid bill from 2010 to 2014. Less is currently spent on criminal legal aid now than was spent in 2000. These cuts were taken on the chin by criminal barristers yet the government proposes a further cut of 30%.

We need to be clear that all barristers are not the same. They tend to specialise within different areas of law - crime, family, civil, employment, etc. Some haven't relied upon legal aid at all for their income and are not part of this debate. The issue at stake is criminal legal aid and what these advocates are going to be paid for their work. The real cause for concern is that junior legal aid barristers who are already the lowest earners in the profession face further huge cuts. There will be a brain drain as newly qualified advocates will instead pursue careers away from legally-aided work or perhaps away from the law altogether. The effects will be wide-ranging as victims of crime will not get the justice they seek and those accused of crimes will increasingly find themselves poorly represented.

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.

[RedJ]

My point is that if Legal Aid is got rid of then solicitors will take on more risky cases on a no win no fee basis. They will have to or they will all go out of business.

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?

They do get a fee even if they lose, I can't remember the technicality of it but there is some cost involved before the case is taken forward. They only take "proper" payment if they win. The term is a misleading one.

[IC1967]

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.