Lawyers on strike - when will the government listen?

Tomorrow, lawyers who usually prosecute and defend criminal cases will strike. They will be joined by some of their colleagues from other areas of the profession.

The legal aid cuts are, along with the welfare 'reforms', the greatest example of this government royally screwing people over. They also provide brilliant examples of the government, mainly Chris 'Failing' Grayling, knowingly using dodgy stats to assist their cause.

In each news report, the government will mention the "high" cost of legal aid spending, without mentioning A) the wasted money which could be saved and B) legal aid expenditure has been falling on its own without the need for reckless and damaging cuts.

The government will also usually cite the "average" earnings of a barrister - which usually appear to be highly unrealistic. Here are a weeks earnings of a criminal barrister who has been in the game since 1980(ish).

Spoiler

To those who don't want to read it, the guy earned £193 - less expenses. That's a bad week - but not unusual at all and becoming more common place.

We need people to do this work - the government is destroying our Justice system.

Just remember that in 2015. :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

silverbolt

£193 quid? Seriously

bloke needs a new job. Hes getting robbed.

Ambulance chasers get more than that

Reply 2

InnerTemple

Original post by silverbolt

£193 quid? Seriously

bloke needs a new job. Hes getting robbed.

Ambulance chasers get more than that

Well that's the problem. We want/need talented, skilled and intelligent people to do this job.

Victims of crime and those accused of crime rely on an effective criminal justice system. And for that, you need the best people doing the job.

Who in their right mind goes through uni, post grad, training and incredibly competitive selection processes just to earn minimum wage or less?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

OMGWTFBBQ

I hope they are held in contempt

Reply 4

InnerTemple

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

I hope they are held in contempt

Nah they won't. The judiciary are supporting this.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

honeywhite

Original post by InnerTemple

Spoiler

Should I rethink my choice to get a law degree?

Reply 6

InnerTemple

Original post by honeywhite

Should I rethink my choice to get a law degree?

Depends what you want to get out of it!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

Asolare

In AS Law, I was very briefly taught about all the cuts to legal aid and how dealing with it as a lawyer would be absolutely dreadful finance-wise and (potentially? I can't recall) time-wise. I *think* you have to study longer to deal with legal aid BUT I am not sure. This was only AS Law.. :tongue:

Oh and yeah I was told the government was only going to make it worse (this was back in 2013 fyi :tongue:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8

honeywhite

Original post by InnerTemple

Depends what you want to get out of it!

Posted from TSR Mobile

I want something that can pay for booze, fags, good food, cars, birds, and coke. But if I can't make a living at the corporate Bar, I'd be very disappointed.

Reply 9

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

CUT LEGAL AID! I support the government on this issue and hope that it is further cut. Some lawyers have been milking the system for years.

Reply 10

InnerTemple

Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen

CUT LEGAL AID! I support the government on this issue and hope that it is further cut. Some lawyers have been milking the system for years.

Yeah, those filthly fat cats. Earning tiny sums of money for what?! Having the audacity to prosecute murderers and rapists and ensure the fair administration of justice? The gits.

Yi-Ge-Ningderen: your credibility is fairly low around these areas. But I'll take your statement above to mean that you are for the destruction of a criminal justice system. Which is odd, because your the sort who is usually arguing that we should punish crooks etc...

Reply 11

InnerTemple

Original post by Algorithm69

I'm trying hard to care but I simply don't. Whatever "evil" things the Conservatives are doing they are leagues ahead of Labour in my mind, and I'll keep voting for them.

Well it is a shame you don't care. I have been a victim of crime and I know others who have as well. I, and they, were grateful that the person responsible was caught and prosecuted. On the flip side, I have also worked with those wrongly accused who were, of course, grateful they they had skilled and talented people working to ensure that they were not convicted.

So, it is a shame that you don't care about the above. And it is a shame you don't care about the UK's history of having a great legal system. I suspect that you, like Grayling, are the sort of person who would attend the celebrations concerning the Magna Carta - remark on the 800 years of legal history which Britain is proud to boast - whilst not actually giving a toss about it at all.

It is also a shame that you don't care about the people behind this. Those who want to work hard but are finding that they just cannot afford to do so. It seems, actually, that you just don't care about anything in particular - but then you mention that you are a tory voter, so I guess it makes sense. I jest, of course.

In any event, this is not necessarily a party political point. The current government has been particularly bad. Sham consultations, mis-leading press reports and radical and damaging changes. but neglect of our legal aid system has been an ongoing theme since the 1990s.

Reply 12

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by InnerTemple

Yes....as lawyers are known for being amongst the poorest paid and most overworked group of workers in the country....

Reply 13

InnerTemple

Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Yes....as lawyers are known for being amongst the poorest paid and most overworked group of workers in the country....

Those who work on criminal/family/employment and other legal aid cases would fit into that category, yes.

Reply 14

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by InnerTemple

Those who work on criminal/family/employment and other legal aid cases would fit into that category, yes.

l perhaps they should look another job if being a lawyer is such a hard thing. Diddums.

Reply 15

Liberalists

Welcome to the public sector, to all those who oppose market liberalisation.

Reply 16

nulli tertius

Original post by InnerTemple

So, it is a shame that you don't care about the above. And it is a shame you don't care about the UK's history of having a great legal system. I suspect that you, like Grayling, are the sort of person who would attend the celebrations concerning the Magna Carta - remark on the 800 years of legal history which Britain is proud to boast - whilst not actually giving a toss about it at all.

It is also a shame that you don't care about the people behind this. Those who want to work hard but are finding that they just cannot afford to do so. It seems, actually, that you just don't care about anything in particular - but then you mention that you are a tory voter, so I guess it makes sense. I jest, of course.

In any event, this is not necessarily a party political point. The current government has been particularly bad. Sham consultations, mis-leading press reports and radical and damaging changes. but neglect of our legal aid system has been an ongoing theme since the 1990s.

The ultimate problem is that we have managed to create a criminal justice system that is vastly expensive to run and lawyers as well as the judiciary and politicians have contributed to this.

You have quoted the fees of a criminal defence barrister. What is wrong with those fees is that he did not have enough work on each of those days.

If you go back to the position before 1971, let us assume that all of those cases were Quarter Sessions cases. A county might have a couple of borough quarter sessions and the county quarter sessions might be held by adjournment in two or three towns. The busier sessions might be held over more than one day, The calendar would be arranged so that all of the sessions fell conveniently over a week or two.

The county court judge would also be sitting somewhere on in the area on each of those days and probably at least once a week he would stop dealing with petty debt and possession proceedings (usually attended by solicitors) and try a personal injury case.

There might be somewhere between three and a dozen barristers of different seniority who attend those sessions and they would do all of the work, prosecution, defence and appellate and would also handle any civil work such as licensing appeals.

These regular attenders would also most likely be the barristers instructed on the small county court civil work.

The fees paid per case would not, proportionately be higher, and might well have been much lower, than those paid today but a barrister attending sessions would be likely to have several cases in the list each day and might well pick up an extra £1 (the shilling would be for his clerk) from a dock brief.

This is only one of a myriad of changes over the last 40 years that have conspired to created an overly expensive system. The barrister whose fees are quoted expects to be paid a full day's pay for waiting around for several hours and then doing less than 30 minutes work. That is unrealistic but unless the system is changed, he can do little other than waste a day on a single case.

Reply 17

Studentus-anonymous

The government attacks everyone but their own immediate champagne social circles, and yet people still vote Tory? Like seriously, why?

"Hmm I feel like smashing in my own teeth with a hammer, but since I can't find a hammer today and it's election day I think I'll vote in vile ***** who continue to give taxpayer money to foreign countries but can't even let Joe Public have adequate healthcare or legal counsel. *Ticks the Tory candidate's box and drops the ballot into the box merry as ****, pleased that self-harm has now been inflicted.*

Reply 18

InnerTemple

Original post by Algorithm69

It's a shame I had to read that sanctimonious speech.

Oh do one.

You didn't have to read it. It is entirely your choice as to whether you read posts and comment on them. It is telling that you are unable to make a positive case for your position on this matter.

Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen

l perhaps they should look another job if being a lawyer is such a hard thing. Diddums.

Some are. Which is bad for us all. That is what this thread is about - perhaps you could try reading threads and maybe even reading deeper into the subject they are about?

Original post by nulli tertius

The ultimate problem is that we have managed to create a criminal justice system that is vastly expensive to run and lawyers as well as the judiciary and politicians have contributed to this.

But, as I said, expenditure has been decreasing on its own for a while now. There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. It isn't as if spending on legal aid is out of control.

I think that it is fine for a government to look at making systems leaner and more efficient. However, and as seen in areas like welfare, reforms seem very poorly executed. What the government propose does not appear to be a very sensible way of cutting costs and may even backfire.

As for the fees quoted - the barrister concerned said this: "It also shows the diminution of work at the Bar, as, years ago, if one went to cover a sentence, mention or PCMH, invariably, one would have several, similar briefs."

The main point of highlighting that member's earnings was to demonstrate the paltry income we are talking about. This isn't, as I am sure you are aware, a case of a group of very high earners worrying about whether they can afford their multiple foreign holidays. This is about cuts which are going to make an already bad situation worse.

Reply 19

Clip

Original post by InnerTemple

Who in their right mind goes through uni, post grad, training and incredibly competitive selection processes just to earn minimum wage or less?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Thousands and thousands and thousands of people, not unlike the denizens of this forum.

I'm afraid you're making the suggestion that this will affect the supply of lawyers in some way. Even if it were to cut the numbers of those wannabe advocates by half (and that would have to be a crazy consequence), the profession would still be oversubscribed at the bottom end.