I need a rant - our legal system sucks!

[ECCOnoob]

I don't have the least problem with the solicitors, barristers and legal system at all.

 

I do, however, have a problem with the fact that one party of a civil case can get full Legal Aid and can effectively force the other party to pay huge amounts of money that they don't have by dragging their heels, refusing to negotiate and basically just because they can and they know they can win just by bankrupting the other party whilst they don't pay a penny to do it.

 

That situation is nothing to do with what is 'right' or the benefits of either situation and everything to do with the inequality of whether you can pay.

 

I do understand what you mean. I too have many cases that I really wish I could get LA for as the clients are genuine and in need. But what is the solution? Legal aid like everything else has to have a cut off. Its public money.

 

There are some attempts to assist.... Some people get full legal aid, some people still get legal aid but have to make contributions. Some people have to pay back monies if they are successful at the end of the case. There are lots of levels, values, exceptions and tarrifs with legal aid. Its not all black and white.

 

Also, I really dont understand what you refer to by "dragging their heels". If you are talking about civil law then nearly all cases follow the very stright Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Once a party has been notified of a claim they instantly have to follow a set protocol period for acknowledgement and response. If no response a case is issued at Court. Once that happens its set and bound by a Court timetable and any forthcoming directions and timescales are all under Order of a Judge. If a party feels that the other side are dragging their heels they can make an Applicaiton to enforce the other party to do something or disclose sometihng and a Judge will decide whether to enforce on that issue. Similarly for larger cases a Judge will have regular Case Management Conferences with all parties to ensure that the parties are getting on with things.

 

I can tell you on very good authority that any attempt to drag matter on will result in severe action from Judge and could lead to costs implications, reductions or at the worst a stike out of the claim/defence altogether.

 

However, I stand by what I said before. Law is complex. Cases take a long time to come to a conclusion.

 

There are too many people out there who get suckered into the media and tv adverts and think they can pop in, issue an action and presto, within a few weeks the case comes to a conclusion.

[andygardener]

Ok, I'll clarify it for you.

 

If you google "Sheffield County Court rates" you will find the rates set.

 

Are they set in stone? No, of course not. Do we as a rule stick to them? Yes, absolutely. We can't charge more, because we wouldn't get it.

 

Is there a minimum? No, and I don't think I've ever said that - I apologise if I've given that impression. That said, the minimum is set by the people we work for. I can't see it going down too well if I suddenly started saying to my bosses "Well I liked this client so I set the rate at £40 an hour". I like a lot of my clients, and after all they're running a business, meaning that if I did that, my job would be at risk. I have a house and family, so I'll do what I'm told.

 

Do we do pro bono? Of course we do, but see the point above. As much as I'd like to help people for free (it'd be a lovely world), it's not economic reality. The reality is this:-

 

The Court tell the firms what they can charge.

The Firms (partners) tell their staff what they will charge.

The staff do as they're told as we want to keep our jobs.

 

Harsh reality I'm afraid.

 

A further question - how many gardening jobs worth say £1000 do you do for free each week? Genuine question? I've struggled with cash before, but no workman ever offered their work for free to me sadly.

 

A system which sets a maximum rate for fees, which everyone then charges as standard is clearly not an efficient one. If the market was efficient then competition would drive fees down to a much more sensible level.

 

Based on what you've stated on this thread if I wish to engage your services it will cost me £200 an hour. But what I'm actually getting is the services of someone on less than £20 an hour. So the markup is a staggering 900%, how is this justifiable? If I worked on the same basis after all my expenses I'd have to charge myself out at well over £100 an hour, however I don't think I'd get much work at those kind of rates. I've got nothing against people earning a fair wage for professional jobs. However, when the actual wage paid to do a job is a tenth of what the client pays then the market is seriously skewed and is not delivering value for money to customers.

 

When everyone is facing cuts it's time to take a long hard look at the exorbitant fees charged by the legal profession, more realistic fees would allow more people access to justice and thus more work for the profession, creating more jobs at a decent wage.

 

(as for pro bono work, I raised that as a point against the concept of minimum fee's which appeared to be being put forward - I don't expect you to work for free. In my own case I have and continue to give my time for free on occasion both to charities and individuals when my schedule allows and I deem it appropriate but that's not really relevant)

[Strix]

I don't have the least problem with the solicitors, barristers and legal system at all.

 

I do, however, have a problem with the fact that one party of a civil case can get full Legal Aid and can effectively force the other party to pay huge amounts of money that they don't have by dragging their heels, refusing to negotiate and basically just because they can and they know they can win just by bankrupting the other party whilst they don't pay a penny to do it.

 

That situation is nothing to do with what is 'right' or the benefits of either situation and everything to do with the inequality of whether you can pay.

 

if that had been the op we'd probably have a different thread, with much more sympathy for the 'victim'

[Moosey]

A system which sets a maximum rate for fees, which everyone then charges as standard is clearly not an efficient one. If the market was efficient then competition would drive fees down to a much more sensible level.

 

Based on what you've stated on this thread if I wish to engage your services it will cost me £200 an hour. But what I'm actually getting is the services of someone on less than £20 an hour. So the markup is a staggering 900%, how is this justifiable? If I worked on the same basis after all my expenses I'd have to charge myself out at well over £100 an hour, however I don't think I'd get much work at those kind of rates. I've got nothing against people earning a fair wage for professional jobs. However, when the actual wage paid to do a job is a tenth of what the client pays then the market is seriously skewed and is not delivering value for money to customers.

 

When everyone is facing cuts it's time to take a long hard look at the exorbitant fees charged by the legal profession, more realistic fees would allow more people access to justice and thus more work for the profession, creating more jobs at a decent wage.

 

(as for pro bono work, I raised that as a point against the concept of minimum fee's which appeared to be being put forward - I don't expect you to work for free. In my own case I have and continue to give my time for free on occasion both to charities and individuals when my schedule allows and I deem it appropriate but that's not really relevant)

 

You might well be right, and that's happened now. RTA fees are largely limited to £800, so even if an RTA lawyer spends 10 hours on a case, they get £800. That's coming in across the board in personal injury.

 

The thing is, you're not just paying for me. You're paying the costs of the firm, being offices, facilities etc. I have no idea whatsoever what those costs are, but they're not cheap.

 

It's the same as a car. Your average Mondeo costs a couple of thousand to build, but sells for ten times that, because of the "other" costs in making them, and profit.

[andygardener]

You might well be right, and that's happened now. RTA fees are largely limited to £800, so even if an RTA lawyer spends 10 hours on a case, they get £800. That's coming in across the board in personal injury.

 

The thing is, you're not just paying for me. You're paying the costs of the firm, being offices, facilities etc. I have no idea whatsoever what those costs are, but they're not cheap.

 

It's the same as a car. Your average Mondeo costs a couple of thousand to build, but sells for ten times that, because of the "other" costs in making them, and profit.

 

Ambulance chasing "where there's blame there's a claim" merchants are a whole far worse subculture within the legal sector which costs all of us extra in our insurance premiums so I think £80/hr is far too generous for the dubious "service" which they provide.

 

However back to mainstream lawyers such as yourself. I'm fully aware that companies have all manner of costs to meet, however what other sectors charge 900% markups to cover those costs? If we're being incredibly generous then at a absolute maximum, given a fancy office with high rent and rates, the best of everything when it comes to IT, stationary etc and generous pension contributions your net direct apportioned cost including salary will not be more than £40 an hour. So if we allow a 50% markup which is vastly more than most sectors we still only get £60 an hour. Yet your firm is charging more than 3 times that. Put it into context - if you hire a cleaner who is paid minimum wage from a company and they sent you a bill for £125 for two hours cleaning would you think that represented good value? Would you accept it as a fair markup that reflected their premises, admin and managerial costs, or would you be on the phone to watchdog?

 

It's not that legal fees are a bit high, they bear no semblance whatsoever to their real worth in a competitive market, and that has got to change.

[medusa]

if that had been the op we'd probably have a different thread, with much more sympathy for the 'victim'

 

The OP is just frustrated, quite understandably angry at the situation that they have now found themselves in and needed a rant.

[medusa]

 

Also, I really dont understand what you refer to by "dragging their heels". If you are talking about civil law then nearly all cases follow the very stright Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Once a party has been notified of a claim they instantly have to follow a set protocol period for acknowledgement and response. If no response a case is issued at Court. Once that happens its set and bound by a Court timetable and any forthcoming directions and timescales are all under Order of a Judge. If a party feels that the other side are dragging their heels they can make an Applicaiton to enforce the other party to do something or disclose sometihng and a Judge will decide whether to enforce on that issue. Similarly for larger cases a Judge will have regular Case Management Conferences with all parties to ensure that the parties are getting on with things.

 

I can tell you on very good authority that any attempt to drag matter on will result in severe action from Judge and could lead to costs implications, reductions or at the worst a stike out of the claim/defence altogether.

 

However, I stand by what I said before. Law is complex. Cases take a long time to come to a conclusion.

 

There are too many people out there who get suckered into the media and tv adverts and think they can pop in, issue an action and presto, within a few weeks the case comes to a conclusion.

 

In this case if an agreement could be reached between the parties then this could be concluded a lot earlier, but in the absence of an agreement then a whole selection of further work is necessary and only one side is having to pay a bill for that extra work.

 

Half hour hearings are turning into 6 hour arguments, all of which incur costs only for one side of the case.

 

I can't comment further without revealing information that I know would be neither welcomed nor sensible.

[Moosey]

Quote:

 

It's not that legal fees are a bit high, they bear no semblance whatsoever to their real worth in a competitive market, and that has got to change.

 

You raise an interesting point Andy. Bear with me. I'm on my phone so will reply in full when I get to the laptop :-)

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[ECCOnoob]

In this case if an agreement could be reached between the parties then this could be concluded a lot earlier, but in the absence of an agreement then a whole selection of further work is necessary and only one side is having to pay a bill for that extra work.

 

Half hour hearings are turning into 6 hour arguments, all of which incur costs only for one side of the case.

 

I can't comment further without revealing information that I know would be neither welcomed nor sensible.

 

I think we need to be clear here. It is certainly not one side occurring costs.

 

Just because a person has legal aid does not mean that costs dont still rack up and need to be paid.

 

It will be up to a Court to decide and award costs. They may decide against party A on legal aid and Order that costs incurred by both parties are paid from public funding....

 

....They may choose to decide against with Party B who is a self funding individual and insist that they pay the incurred costs from both parties....

 

....or they simply may Order costs in the case (which basically means each side pays their own costs)

 

If the OP solicitors have any sense they should have and would have legal expenses insurance in place so that even if they lose and have to pay ALL costs, the client will be covered through insurance and not actually have to pay themselves.

 

Surely you cannot think that a Court would automatically side with a party who is self funding rather than on legal aid just because a disputed case personally costs them?? Hardly justice.

 

Also, I am curious to understand why you feel that a "half hour hearing" are being turned into a "six hour hearing" I have explained previously that a court is very much in control of a case once it is issued. They set the timetable, they allocate the hearing(s), they Order the directions, they approve what can and cannot be submitted in evidence, they order negotiations and timetable, they list and allocate time for a trial, they award and or enforce Judgment. I'm sorry for the OP but it appears clear to me that for whatever reason the parties cannot reach agreement. The Court must be satisfied with the dispute as evidenced by the other party to warrant further proceedings in the case. If they weren't they would simply dismiss it and order an agreement or their own Judgement to the relevant party.

 

I can sympathise with the OP - particularly if for whatever reason they are self funding. But that's the nature of litigation - frustrating and upsetting it is but it has to be done justly and equitably. i.e. personal circumstances and financial hardship cannot cloud a judgement based on the facts and evidence presented.

 

Whatever the outcome its a Judge that will decide what is right or wrong. Someone be it the OP or the other party will be very upset by the outcome.

 

I wish them luck with the case and I urge them to monitor their solicitors very carefully and make very sure that they are being offered all the financial assistance/insurance/fixed fees they can have. They need to be told very clearly what they can and cannot have. If they are not satisfied, they are perfectly free to vote with their feet and find another. I urge them to do so.

[medusa]

Nobody has said that the court costs are only being paid by one side of the case or that the judge will side with either side automatically.

 

However, one side gets full legal aid and therefore does not see, and is not limited by, any of their legal costs and knows that by forcing extra reports, extra hearings and lots of hours of solicitors' time they are forcing the OP to pay huge amounts of money to engage solicitors, a barrister and to pay court fees, and they are exploiting this to the maximum.

 

As far as the other party is concerned, this is a weapon in their favour, if only because the OP has few assets and lots of fixed outgoings due to low income and a family that need the basics paying for them.

 

The outcome of the case is not necessarily going to be decided by the court anyway. If the money cannot be found to engage the barrister in advance then no matter the rights and wrongs of the case, it will never get to court and while I can't disclose what will happen as a result, it will be to the detriment of the person involved.