[Closed] Spare a thought for those poor legal aid lawyers

I'm sorry dear STWers, posting a link to that awful capitalist instrument of mass financial knowledge, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/30/criminal-lawyers-promise-boycott-legal-aid-cases-lower-rate ]Here, the 'truth' from the Grauniad[/url] they won't try and make you pay to read it.

You can be sure whatever get cuts for us, our asylum seeking and economic migrants friends will still be getting a first class service. Along with the Translator and of course the Guardian if they are sharp enough to claim they are children, (amazing how mature some of them appear at 14.)

You can't read the article unless you register or subscribe.

bigblackshed - Member
You can't read the article unless you register or subscribe.

Try that grauniad link..

You know that legal aid supports the people who need the legal representation, not the lawyers, don't you?

You know that legal aid supports the people who need the legal representation, not the lawyers, don't you?

Lawyers refuse to describe their action as a strike, pointing out that they will still carry out work for private clients

our asylum seeking and economic migrants friends will still be getting a first class service. Along with the Translator

Unfortunately, these people aren't getting a good service even now. A friend who does court translation says that their rates have been cut so much that it's not worthwhile going to court

Yeah, sure, Legal Aid lawyers all make insane money, whatever.

My wife used to be the secretary for a solicitor who did mostly legally-aided education law. He did stuff like making sure disabled kids got the support they needed to enable them to go to school, special needs got statemented properly, carers got to have a day or two of respite care every so often, evil, profiteering stuff like that. Their department consistently ran at a loss, Legal Aid didn't usually cover the work that needed to be done, and most of the shortfall was bankrolled by the firm's other, non-LA departments.

Fortunately that's all history now - the government has effectively shut down the hugely profitable Legal Aid gravy train already, the solicitor is now a law lecturer, and if there's any disabled kids needing help with their education, well **** 'em, right?

tyrionl1 you do understand that even before these cuts legal aid lawyers were expected to prepare for a hearing that could last all day, travel to the hearing, do the (all day hearing) then travel back all for the princely total of £46.50 - and often unpaid (because of the fee structure adopted by the Ministry of Justice many individual hearings were unpaid?)

Oh, and many are self-employed so that £46.50 for your whole day includes all your travel costs, business expenses, food, any staff you have to employ and other frivolous things like tax payments and a mortgage.

It's why I gave up legal aid work.

My private clients are willing to pay a proper fee for my work. The Government (through legal aid) didn't.

As mintimperial quite rightly notes - the end result is people left without legal advice or legal representation unless they're prepared to pay for it on private client rates.

So let's hope you're never wrongly accused of a crime, eh?

Because the Government changed the regulations so you can't get back money you pay as a private client to be defended by a non-legal aid lawyer, [b]even if you're found 'not guilty'.[/b]

So yes - spare a thought for the legal aid lawyers. They provide a huge and valuable service that you would hope neither you nor anyone you care about ever has to rely on and they do it for much less than the Government's PR and spin people/Daily Fail would whip you up into a frenzy for.

Yeah, sure, Legal Aid lawyers all make insane money, whatever.

My wife used to be the secretary for a solicitor who did mostly legally-aided education law. He did stuff like making sure disabled kids got the support they needed to enable them to go to school, special needs got statemented properly, carers got to have a day or two of respite care every so often, evil, profiteering stuff like that. Their department consistently ran at a loss, Legal Aid didn't usually cover the work that needed to be done, and most of the shortfall was bankrolled by the firm's other, non-LA departments.

Fortunately that's all history now - the government has effectively shut down the hugely profitable Legal Aid gravy train already, the solicitor is now a law lecturer, and if there's any disabled kids needing help with their education, well **** 'em, right?

Well said that man, couldn't have put it better myself

There is a minority who automatically assume Lawyers/Solicitors earn huge amounts of money. This is far from the truth spare a thought the endless stress, hours of working from home, multiple case load......

What a number of thoroughly unpleasant posts, IHN, Mintimperial and Stimpy's excepted.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good dose of your schadenfreude..

Legal Aid and LA lawyers are there to assist the underprivileged with serious issues such as the loss of liberty. Most legal aid lawyers I've met work extremely hard for substantially less than they could command in the public sector, work antisocial hours, and all to better the position of their fellow man.

I wouldn't want to do their jobs on what they're paid now, and even less so follow the proposed 9% fee cut.

Remember, thoses fees don't go into the pocket of the lawyer - they go to their business to cover overheads etc. Many legal aid firms have given up or will give up because these fees simply cannot sustain a viable business.

tyrion1, you seem to be missing even a very basic understanding of the subject you've chosen to whinge about 🙂

You can be sure whatever get cuts for us, our asylum seeking and economic migrants friends will still be getting a first class service.

Shouldn't you be over on the Daily Mail comments section?

slow clap for tyrion, your ignorance speaks volumes

My sister-in-law is a legal aid lawyer, doing the "get me a lawyer" police station work right through to court hearings. This is not glamorous and well-paid work guys; I think she gets the full-time equivalent of £25kish with no pension etc as she's self-employed. She puts in loads of extra hours for no pay.

My impression is of someone over-worked, under-paid and yet competent and committed. Thanks to the post-2010 world, she is already gone to being self-employed (with all the benefits that entails...for someone else) and expected to cover a large geographic area.

Oh - and the firm she "works" for has just lost the local contract, meaning that she'll be referred no more work from January. 🙁

tyrionl1 - see what Ben H says ^^^^ there? £25k full-time self-employed having spent years (and years) to qualify and train?

And by full-time I mean "being called out at Christ O'Clock in the morning to a police station" or "getting papers at 6pm the night before the hearing so you've got to stay up all night preparing". Proper full-time.

And no pension, sick pay or holiday pay to boot.

That's a real "gravy train" right there.

Some of Cersei Blairs finest suffering.

Michael? Mr Gove? Is that you posting?

I'll echo comments like stimpy; LA solicitors work long hours for poor recompense - the recent changes make it tantamount to pro-bono work. $DEITY forbid you should need representation with that attitude.

So if my ignorance is so upsetting how about educating me more? Lets start with the Human rights legal industry and how that works? Bearing in mind all I asked you to do in the first place was spare a thought for the poor fellows.

I smell an Edinburgh defence.... Having said that after you called Ernie a champagne socialist you lost credibility...

So if my ignorance is so upsetting how about educating me more?

When I read the op I managed to get soem spit in my eye.

bigblackshed - Member
You can't read the article unless you register or subscribe.

FT is one of the few new outlets I've found it worth registering a free account for. The number of stories they restrict free accounts to reading is enough for links found scattered around places like here, and the login is persistent.

Its not even the edinburgh defence, its just weasel words, claiming one thing but couching it carefully.
Much like someone saying tyrionl1 is a massive effen ****. Allegedly.

[quote=tyrionl1 opined]So if my ignorance is so upsetting how about educating me more? Lets start with the Human rights legal industry and how that works? Bearing in mind all I asked you to do in the first place was spare a thought for the poor fellows.

No one is upset by your ignorance not even you 😥
That last line is there to imply you meant genuine sympathy for them and we know that is a bare faced lie

The best I can do here is offer you either a spade to keep digging or advise you to shut up as any explanation of the "industry" will be met with a similar style playground reply

On the broader issues we have a serious issue as

1.the application/administration of the law is expensive
2. we really need to be able to access it

I have no solution but I do not sleep easily knowing a conservative goivt led by Gove is tasked with finding the solution

tyrionl1 - Member
So if my ignorance is so upsetting how about educating me more? Lets start with the Human rights legal industry and how that works? Bearing in mind all I asked you to do in the first place was spare a thought for the poor fellows.

How about in future educating yourself before posting ill-advised polemic?

So if my ignorance is so upsetting how about educating me more?

Lets start with the Human rights legal industry and how that works?

There is a minority who automatically assume Lawyers/Solicitors earn huge amounts of money.

just to be clear (if my posts ever are )
Background
last year government research showed criminal legal aid business ran on break even to 6% profit so the Government brought in 8% pay cut to be followed by 8% this year . there had previously been a 10% cut in crown court fees and a significant down turn in volumes. The Government aka Grayling could not articulate the saving required but it appeared to already have been achieved the Govt rejected Lawyers proposals to achieve what the Govt seemed to say they wanted. The govt promised further consultation before this years 8% came in.
This year the 8% is being imposed without the further consultation promised plus an additional 50% cut in some funding of preparation for the more time consuming and important crown court cases.
The strike
Basically we are declining to work under the terms of the new public funding rules .
So if you have a case that would be funded at the new rates ie starts from today we won't do it .
If you had a case with legal aid before today we will carry on.
If you ask for the Duty solicitor at the police station or court he will do his job as duty solicitor for that transaction/hearing but will not apply for legal aid to carry the case on to its subsequent hearings.
Because we are simply declining to work under the financially crippling new regime if you can and will pay us privately we will represent you but be aware that this government took away your right to recover your reasonable fees in full if you are shown to be innocent in law.
Personal
I am generously paid at about £38 k pa after 6 years training and 25 years experience, I wear the fancy kit and do cases from police station through magistrates and crown court to court of appeal .

Well said crankboy- and good luck

I like this thread.

People who understand the situation, either from personal experience (or reading more than a tabloid headline) explaining why the changes are a bad thing.

The criminal justice system is fast becoming a vehicle for the rich to buy their way out of trouble whilst both the CPS and accused people on legal aid are increasingly being failed by ill thought out cuts.

Even the Home Office have admitted they had no idea what effect the cuts woudl have before they were introduced.

rich to buy their way out of trouble whilst both the CPS and accused people on legal aid are increasingly being failed by ill thought out cuts.

[i]And the people who aren't rich but don't qualify for legal aid effectively have no legal access unless they bankrupt themselves. [/i]

indeed.

It's amazing that this thread has some actual real information on rates and salaries allowing people to make their own judgments. Something missing from all the main stream media. From what has been said on here I can see that legal aid solicitors have a very legitimate point.

It's amazing that this thread has some actual real information on rates and salaries allowing people to make their own judgments. Something missing from all the main stream media. From what has been said on here I can see that legal aid solicitors have a very legitimate point.

Yep.

I think the whole idea is to make sure legal aid doesn't pay, so they (the Tories) can then phase it out. It's all part of motivating the poor to [s]find a job[/s] die quicker.

"tyrionl1" is blatantly a new login from some ol' troll.

[img] https://www.truckersforum.net/forum/attachments/afiles-abovetopsecret-com_files_img_yx523ce2b0-png.27964/ [/img]

" think the whole idea is to make sure legal aid doesn't pay, so they (the Tories) can then phase it out. It's all part of motivating the poor to find a job die quicker. "

Personally I think the whole thing is ideological/political not economic Grayling who was at the helm for the first round did not understand the difference between turn over and profit (genuinely no hyperbole it had to be explained to him in an "engagement" meeting) they also did not know what they meant by the savings ie on budget or predicted spend , they said we need to save from the budget we pointed out the predicted spend was already that amount less than the budget they then shifted to wanting to cut from the predicted spend.

Despite the propaganda from the Ministry of Justice Britain does not have the most expensive Justice System, far from it we have a comparatively high legal aid spend but that is a feature of how we do our law and leads to the system being significantly cheaper in other areas and cheaper over all.

Lots of the reforms envisage alternative service suppliers Eddie Stobart , The COOP and G4s have all been mooted.
Individual Independent lawyers fight for the individual even when publically funded will a state appointed monolithic company fight for the individual or fight to keep it's contract.

To give more perspective to the point crankboy is making, [url= http://www.rollonfriday.com/InsideInfo/UKCityFirms/tabid/68/Default.aspx ]THIS[/url] is a list of all the main City firms and what they pay their junior lawyers.

Bear in mind, these firms will act for businesses in relation to commercial matters, rather than private individuals.

Almost every single law student fresh out of university will earn more by working at a commercial city firm than someone working on legal aid matters with 25 years experience, and will earn double that once they actually qualify.

We will end up with a situation where not only are existing lawyers working on legal aid funder matters leaving, but there will be no new lawyers to replace them.

I had my heart set on criminal law from about 14 years old, until I found myself under the weight of law school debt and then the commercial world seemed like a much more sensible option. Actually, it became the only option.

peterfile - Member
To give more perspective to the point crankboy is making, THIS is a list of all the main City firms and what they pay their junior lawyers.

At the risk of quibbling with anotherwise sound post, it's an average across salary bandings based on responses to salary surveys, so probably not hugely accurate.

I would say the number of people drawing those salaries would be relatively small - of the 130,000ish people with practicing certificates, I'd be surprised if it was greater than 10 - 15%.

Anyone outside London doing general commercial work gets a relatively decent wage but it's by no means the riches of Croesius. Partners (at least those that own part of the business) do well, but then if you'd spent the last 15 years locked in a darkened room without seeing your family you'd rather expect to!

I have heard of LA lawyers in "the provinces" (as we're quaintly called) earning barely above minimum wage.

Far better to direct any leftist ire at the big four accountants - now, where's my pitchfork... 😉

[img] [/img] for all the lawyers on this thread, Legal aid and a bloody good lawyer kept me out of jail on a number of occasions 15 odd years ago ago and at the time in question the legal aid system was stripped to the bone so i can only imagine how unrewarding (financially not morally) it is to practice now.

My lawyer closed his practice 5 years ago as it was not financially viable to continue.

I didn't realise how dire it was, but if it's as described above, then they've got my support.

Crankboy I'm behind you all the way. I got out of legally aided work many years ago - it couldn't pay my mortgage and out food on the table so I jumped, but plenty in my Chambers (and a number of my friends too) still work in areas funded by legal aid.

To all the non-lawyers showing support - it is really appreciated by those who are taking a stand against outrageous, unjustified and untested cuts which effectively render legal aid work wholly pointless.

The Tories ideal legal system for the poor is the benefit sanction system. An untrained employee on just above basic wage makes his judgement based on one sided evidence (often in the absence of the accused). He then decides the sentence (benefits withheld for how long) and carries out the sentence with no peer review. The benefit is withdrawn immediately often without informing the accused (who wasn't present at the 'trial'). The accused can appeal but it takes up to 3 months, during which they have no source of income so often can't afford to eat or get the bus to the Job centre to appeal. The whole system is completely one sided and the sentences are far more serious than those a magistrate can impose. It sometimes ends with the accused starving to death, which is then considered a good outcome as there is no appeal and one less benefit claimant.

Welcome to Compassionate Conservatism!

Some more solidarity here from another lawyer (actually, now an ex lawyer - I earn more as a commercial person than as a commercial lawyer these days).

The reality is that we're going to have to rely on the big City firms doing criminal defence work pro bono. Which will mean defendants get inexperienced junior lawyers who have no criminal law specialism, rather than people with years of experience.

And as for finding counsel to represent in court, GLWT

To give more perspective to the point crankboy is making, THIS is a list of all the main City firms and what they pay their junior lawyers.
Bear in mind, these firms will act for businesses in relation to commercial matters, rather than private individuals.

Also, the rollonfriday stats are relatively accurate in the experience of my more successful ex colleagues...

by the way, court interpreting (a gig requirig even more skill and study than lawyering imvho) has been re-outsourced and it's been a complete cluster****. see recent issues of Private Eye for details. hearings have had to be abandoned because interpreters were absent or useless noobs.

To offer some balance, my Wife's Uncle is one of the Country's top Barristers / QCs and the Torygraph once claimed he was making over £500k a year from Legal Aid alone, he's very much in the minority though and towards the end of a pretty amazing career.

The thing is though, 'the powers that be' and their mates in the media would love to see this as some sort of gravy train that makes 'lawyers' rich off the back of frivolous lawsuits but it's not really like that - without legal aid we'll be back to the bad old days of only the wealthy being able to afford legal representation, that would be fun wouldn't it? What's the point of having employment laws, equality laws hell even basic human rights if only those who don't need them, can afford to enforce them?

If only the profession had someone at the top who would actually listen to their ideas in order to sort things out for all concerned. maybe someone with experience of working with professionals in a previous 'employment'
promoted ,sacked promoted sacked promoted....answers on a postcard please I hope I never need to use the law anytime soon!

we'll be back to the bad old days of only the wealthy being able to afford legal representation, that would be fun wouldn't it? What's the point of having employment laws, equality laws hell even basic human rights if only those who don't need them, can afford to enforce them?

You do realise that half the front bench think this would be absolutely fine.

At the risk of quibbling with anotherwise sound post, it's an average across salary bandings based on responses to salary surveys, so probably not hugely accurate.

They're pretty accurate. Spot on for my old firm and know from friends that their firms seem to be accurate too. 1st year, 2nd year and NQ are generally publicised. Most big firms have stepped salary until you hit 4/5 PQE anyway, so there isn't too much deviation from standard figures.

just to be pedantic...some of those firms do practice criminal law for fraud, directors duties, bribery etc matters, representing corporations and individuals. But they're not doing shoplifting or PWITS (unless it's an oligarch's wife).

Yep, although for those firms, most of the criminal stuff tends to flow from commercial matters (white collar crime). I was always jealous of the guys who did the SOCA/dawn raid type stuff. Always seemed pretty interesting.

Appreciate the difficult situation this has placed lawyers in, but the refusal to take on these LA cases does look a lot like kicking the defendants in the balls in the vain hope their cries of pain may make the gov change their minds. Surely a more principled, and effective, tactic would be for law firms to refuse to take the prosecution work against people affected by this ruling even if it means turning down the paycheck and an easy win.

Appreciate the difficult situation this has placed lawyers in, but the refusal to take on these LA cases does look a lot like kicking the defendants in the balls in the vain hope their cries of pain may make the gov change their minds

In what way is that different from any other type of strike action?

I doubt there is a lawyer out there who is busting their balls doing legal aid work that doesn't think of this as a last resort.

Surely a more principled, and effective, tactic would be for law firms to refuse to take the prosecution work against people affected by this ruling even if it means turning down the paycheck and an easy win.

Criminal cases in the UK are prosecuted by the state (fiscal service, CPS), so that's not an option.

If only the profession had someone at the top who would actually listen to their ideas

Part of the challenge here is that there are several legal professions, all of whom have a different view of the world and are represented by different bodies.

And this doesn't include the fact that there are also several legal systems in the UK as well.

Whereas Gove, as you point out, is a single politician with a single political agenda. Must be like shooting fish in a barrel....

Criminal cases in the UK are prosecuted by the state (fiscal service, CPS), so that's not an option.

I guess loum could be referring to barrister/QC level stuff where the Crown instruct them - unless they have salaried in house barristers ? - although I've no idea if these legal aid cuts have any bearing at that level due to the types of crimes? I appreciate that in any case this would be a tiny % of cases.

Ah I see what you mean thegreatape.

I'd been looking at it from a summary cases perspective...but you're absolutely right, the CPS provides loads of work to barristers for more serious stuff.

Up here it's only recently - last few years/post Cadder - that we've had police station access to legal advice. You know the geography, so you can imagine the ball ache it is to get a solicitor to attend the police station when the sole local one who is part of the scheme (the others have all refused due to it being uneconomical) is unavailable. Solicitors attending from Aberdeen, Dundee or south of the central belt. What an efficient use of their, the prisoner and the polices time! Not a grumble at solicitors by the way.

Along with the legal aid changes, the tories have another card up their sleeves which is make it financially crippling for the poor to plea innocent that way we can ensure that only the wealthy can afford justice, the plebs just have to bend over and take it.

http://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/news/2015/04/02/how-wealthy-afford-plead-not-guilty/

indeed it is costing a mate of mine £3k to plead not guilty to a driving offence [ that would lead to a criminal record if found guilty]

He does not get it back even if found innocent

Interesting discussion, lots of facts and understanding. Compare this to previous threads where nurses, ambulance, fire fighters and police officers have been under the cost cutting cosh and the response has been "if you don't like it get a job in the private sector you lazy public sector waster". How does it go now, when they came for the nurses I said nothing because it didn't affect me, when they came for the fire fighters I said nothing because.... You get the gist. Is this in fact the majority vocal STW crowd? along with middle management IT Audi drivers, or is that all just stereotyping as well. Who the hell voted for them then? The conservatives that is.

Who the hell voted for them then? The conservatives that is.

Can't blame the conservatives for attacking the poor and anyone who didn't go to public school, as its what they do and its not as if they hide it!

Welcome to the me, me, me society.

[i]Compare this to previous threads where nurses, ambulance, fire fighters and police officers have been under the cost cutting cosh and the response has been "if you don't like it get a job in the private sector you lazy public sector waster"[/i]

Was it?

Not really.

Did.

Makes me wonder about these new rules due to come in next April. The ones where non-EU workers who are earning less than £35,000 after six years in the UK will be deported.

I suppose from the perspective of a Tory MP, anyone earning less than 35k can't have a "proper" job and won't be contributing to society.

So as well as nurses, teachers, most civil servants etc. , legal aid lawyers are also seen as only one step up from those nasty benefits claimants.

junkyard your mate faces three sets of costs.
1 what he pays his solicitor that will be at commercial rates so circa £150 to £300 per hour if he wins he may get a defendants costs order which will refund his legal costs but at legal aid rates ie £42 to £69 per hour so he will get 25% t0 30% back.
2 if he loses or pleads guilty he will pay for the privilege of being prosecuted £200 to £500 region and mood dependent.
3 he will also pay court costs for the use of the court facilities fixed by offence and plea £150 to £1000 this is basically a massive cosh to get people to plead guilty as the system is buckling under the strain of cuts and capital expenses.

oh and he may get a victim surcharge on top!

Funny story of the day I spent all morning at court for a hearing where the fixed fee is £0 waiting to deal with three Estonians we were waiting for an interpreter after 3 1/2 hours we got a Russian interpreter deliberately booked on the basis 2 defendants could speak a bit of English 1 could speak a bit of Russian so if we did the hearing in English and had it translated into Russian then between them they should be able to work out what was going on..Also for my £0 I had to explain the case to the Prosecutor and tell her what she needed to do as no one had given her the papers.

soulwood I think you will find the same people speak up for the fire-fighters nurses and police .
my Best mate is a firefighter, ny wife a trainee radiographer, I understand and see the impact of police cuts on a daily basis and drive a fiat panda bought cheap.

I don't know what you'd call it, a duty scheme, legal aid scheme, whatever, but if you're part of that are you obliged to take any/all work that comes your way? Because that ^ just sounds ludicrous to me.

as someone with a string of qualifications who left a lucrative private sector job to join the police as a vocation for idealistic reasons, and who's just spent 3 years managing a police custody suite, I would say that the legal aid solicitors I met were a massive bunch of well qualified people who've taken up a vocation for idealistic reasons. It's certainly not for the money, the hours or the lovely working environment and company they get to keep.

Agree with an earlier poster that (along with many of the austerity measures, and [i]some[/i] of the police reforms), it's got as much to do with political ideology as it does protecting the public purse.

To be fair when I read the OP I thought "obvious troll is obvious", but he seems to have unwittingly prompted quite an informed and considered thread. Which he probably wouldn't get on the Daily Bile comments section.

To be fair when I read the OP I thought "obvious troll is obvious", but he seems to have unwittingly prompted quite an informed and considered thread. Which he probably wouldn't get on the Daily Bile comments section.

It didn't turn out quite how he expected, but re-affirmed my faith that some/most of our public service employees do a great job under trying conditions for bugger all pay.

Sorry to keep chipping in but it is clearly a subject about which I have a personal need to keep presenting my and my colleagues side.
The Duty scheme is a rota an individual solicitor is on call to cover all work at police stations for either 24 or 12 hours if he is busy it either goes to his firm or back up ie any other member of the scheme willing to take it .The rota'd solicitor is contractually obliged to take the job the firm / back up are not .
At court the duty solicitor s primary obligation is to represent those in custody everything else is discretionary dependent on the duty solicitor's opinion of what is required .
So the duty solicitor scheme is essentially A and E cover to stabalise the case .
Our protest is to do this urgent immediate work because we are bound by our franchise contracts to do it notwithstanding the government's unilateral change of the renumeration in breach of last years promise.
Legal Aid is a means of funding the case either from the start or any subsequent point. We are only "obliged" to undertake paying work within our competence ( the cab rank principal) . this is not a real obligation but an ethical moral one. Our position is that we cannot competently work at the proposed pay rates and stay in business so we decline to take work at that rate as we would have to cut corners .
Aside from my morning anecdote my afternoon was spent reading a lever arch file of unused material that the Cps said was not relevant. I have discovered that all the witness who did e_fits that the Cps say match my client also failed to pick him out on identification parades . The pay rate for reading "unused material" £0 per hour. The importance priceless.
We already do shed loads in our own jobs for free I have spent the last two days working under the pre change regime for exactly no extra cash I have done the court staff's job for them I have done the Cps job in "briefing" their barristers on the facts so the case could proceeded.
And I am expected to swallow a further reduction in fees without compliant.

This really has been an educational thread and particular thanks to crankboy for opening our eyes to the workings of the legal world. It makes me despair even more of this country and its self-serving politicians.

Something is surely going to give. The situation as described is beyond ridiculous and is surely unsustainable. What happens when no legal representation is available for defendants? Do they just not get a defense? Or does the cSe collapse? It's all a bit surreal and very obviously unfair.

To be fair when I read the OP I thought "obvious troll is obvious", but he seems to have unwittingly prompted quite an informed and considered thread.

Very true 😀

Sorry to keep chipping in

Compare this to previous threads where nurses, ambulance, fire fighters and police officers have been under the cost cutting cosh and the response has been "if you don't like it get a job in the private sector you lazy public sector waster".

I went from university to jaw school with no sense of vocation, no sense of justice or fairness. I wanted to become a lawyer to earn good money (I was the first in my family to go to university, so have never had any meaningful career guidance). I then trained at a leading firm and became a corporate lawyer. I helped people become rich by, among other things, helping them sell their businesses. The world of legal aid funded criminal defence work was far away from my thoughts.

I discovered that any legal work is a very hard way to make any money, and certainly will be steering my daughter away from it. But my sense of fairness and justice has grown over the years and I salute the likes of crankboy to do what I never did: use training and knowledge of the law to ensure that the accused are fairly represented when up against the might of the state.

You guys should be the best paid, not fighting for funding to do such valuable work. Grayling and now Gove are a disgrace.

OMITN +1

The law is an incredibly diverse profession, from ambulance chasers to lawyers doing nothing but syndicated/bond finance deals for banks, to lawyers working in criminal defence. The only characteristic shared across all of the different types of lawyer is the term itself, yet most people have a view of the profession as a whole, which is generally disparaging of those busting their gut providing a quasi public service for a fraction of the money of their counterparts working in fields much less important to the very people forming those views.

Next time you see a lawyer, give him a hug 🙂

Amazing insights in this thread, thank you to all for both that and for those that are doing the work. The narrow-sighted new rules are staggering and a clear smack down to the general population.

Now where's the OP gone? Has he been educated enough to express if his views are still the same?

What happens when no legal representation is available for defendants? Do they just not get a defense? Or does the cSe collapse? It's all a bit surreal and very obviously unfair.

Basically yes. Probably longer term we'll see US style plea bargaining introduced which will massively cut down the need for legal representation of poor defendants as they'll be faced with a Hobsons choice: plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit and take 1 year in prison, or ask for a trial (with poor quality legal representation) and risk 5-10 years if you loose.

Now where's the OP gone?

Trolling somewhere else...

There's even a play on the subject!

http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/jul/07/rebecca-lenkiewicz-interview-ida-the-invisible-jane-wenham-witch-walkern

The Criminal Bar has now voted to stop accepting any new cases.

So, no solicitors and no barristers - going to be a bit tricky to run the justice system now...

[edit] Oh and Gove about to appear before the House of Commons Justice committee in the next few minutes - be interesting how he handles it....

Very good thread. Criminal barrister friends are also very upset about the Probation Service.

The pay rate for reading "unused material" £0 per hour. The importance priceless.

Out of interest: This sounds very much as though an hourly-billing approach to working a case is a terrible model.

I've moved over the last few years from (a) hourly billing, to (b) billing by the job but being accountable as though I was billing by the hour, to (c) just being paid to get the hell on with what I'm given to do as well as I reasonably can. (c) is best. Certainly for me, possibly also for my clients.

Is it all completely screwed? Or is there a way of re-designing the way the work is structured and paid for that would make it vaguely remunerative for those involved?