I need a rant - our legal system sucks!

[ECCOnoob]

 

...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.

 

 

...The outcome of the case is not necessarily going to be decided by the court anyway...

 

 

Sorry, I dont understand.... You have referred to "extra hearings" and therefore a Court must be involved already.

 

If a court is involved then parties are strictly bound by a Court timetable and Directions and obviously if and when a hearing or hearings take place it is a Court that decides on the outcome and Orders as a appropriate.

 

That includes obtaining Court permission for the disclosure and inclusion of extra evidence and extra reports. No party has an automatic right to suddenly obtain extra evidence (and 'delay' a matter) unless the Court expressly gives permission to do so.. So, if a party is obtaining said extra reports it must mean that a Court is satisfied that it will assist with their decisions into the case.

 

Now... lets get back to the original situation here - particulary since the OP has disappeared from their own topic and I am not going to explain the 80+ aspects of the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.

 

If the whole situation for the OP is they cannot afford instruction of a Barrister for a final trial then I suggest that they speak to their solicitor in much more detail. Firstly, the need to obtain very clear information as to what they are required to pay for, who the Sols propose to instruct as Barrister, enquire if they can find their own barristers (many have direct client access these days). Furthermore, the OP should ask about legal expenses insurance (either through their own home/car insurance which they may have) or through their solicitors ATE (after the event insurance).

 

Finally the OP could seek to find a barrister who would be willing to be instructed on a CFA (no win-no fee agreement) plenty offer this for a suitable case.

 

The OP's current legal representatives should be doing this anyway. Its their duty to fully advise a client of all options. However, if they are not doing so, the OP should seek a second opinion or simply go elsewhere.

[cgksheff]

..........

 

Finally the OP could seek to find a barrister who would be willing to be instructed on a CFA (no win-no fee agreement) plenty offer this for a suitable case.

 

..........

 

Will they do this when the only 'winnings' to pay a barrister with would be an award of costs?

 

We have been told that this is a Family Court matter and could easily be a custody/contact case with no compensation/damages/assets involved.

 

Would a CFA be possible?

[ECCOnoob]

Ah right a family matter. No sorry, I was lead to believe this was civil case.

 

In a family matter then no CFA is not available however lots of solicitors offer a fixed fee package for both divorce and child contact issues. This is what the OP should be discussing with their solicitor/barrister and shopping around for.

[x-GiGgLeS-x]

i have not been on my own thread due to being at work trying to earn more money.

 

the case is a family matter and is not about a divorce. the things the court have previously set have not been stuck too as other party is doing everything possible to drag. it on. the last two hearings was listed for 15 minutes and we was there 5 hours. get the picture? nothing that we try to compromise with is good enough for the other party. the other party gets full legal aid and we get no help at all.

the outcome of the case should not depend on which party can afford it to be dragged out it should be decided by the evidence andwhat is best x

[ECCOnoob]

Im sorry for the troubles you are having, but have you read the advice given to you by me and my other legal colleagues on here.

 

I keep saying its nothign to do with the parties dragging their heels.

 

The COURT is deciding what will be heard, what they consider to be reasonable arguments and what evidence they consider. They ARE deciding on the facts presented nobody else.

 

The reason it is becoming a long drawn out process is because the Court is satisfied enough that your opposing party has a substantial enough argument and/or evidence. That's the only reason why the said 15 minute hearing would have turned into a 5 hour one. Believe me a Judge would not do that without very good reason.

 

I can completely sympathise that your view is different as you are the opposite party who unfortunately is stuck paying your own way vs someone on legal aid but im telling you on good authority that's how it is. Despite what you might beleive in your obviously frustrated and upset state, no party has a chance to deliberately delay, stall or prolong a case once the Court has control.

 

Every piece of evidence, every hearing, every expert, every witness, every report, every Order all has to be done via permission of the Court. They will decide what is and isn't included. They will be the ones who timetable and schedule everything.

 

Sorry to say but any litigation is a messy business. Its complex, expensive and time consuming.

 

In your position I really urge you to try and seek all the help you can. If your lawyers are not pulling their weight - complain. If they still dont do everything they can to assist you with the mounting costs, shop around.

 

Look for those fixed fees and deferred payments that some practices offer, check your home/car/bank insurance to see if you can apply for legal insurance, discuss with your solicitors about applying for litigation insurance through their practice.

 

These are things they should already be doing for you. If not, leave and go elsewhere.

[x-GiGgLeS-x]

believe me the other party is dragging it out and the judge at the last hearing clearly saw that and that's why the next hearing which should be a 2 hour hearing is scheduled for a half day hearing because the other party will not negotiate and will not compromise AT ALL everything that is said op suggested is not good enough and the other party will only be happy if we said ok you win. until then they will and are dragging it out and are using everything they can for that.

 

we are paying legal fees and the other party isn't even though they own there house and earn more money than us.is that fair! and the reason they don't class her earnings is because they say how she earns them they do not take that job as income.

yet us both on low paid jobs and have children to provide for on a daily basis does not matter.

 

i can not go in to the case details too much but this is not a simple divorce case or. anything like that

[L00b]

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

I am another legal representative around here. Very specialised area of practice.

 

My hourly rate is probably higher than Moosey's, based on the last 4 pages (a few facepalm moments were had, unsurprisingly).

 

For what it's worth, both our hourly rates and scale fees are benchmarked regionally and nationally twice a year. Have been for years. I.e. what we charge, what direct competitors charge, where, who by, what for, etc. Reasonably easy to do, considering how specialised the work is, and how few practitionners there are (about 3,000 for the UK, and probably less in active practice, and of that you can exclude at least a quarter who work in industry (i.e. for a company rather than a legal firm, so who don't have a 'rate' and charge 'legal fees' as such)).

 

Based on benchmarked figures, my hourly rate is as competitive as can be for our industry, which is itself as competitive as can be (several high-profile failures since 2008, and the race to the bottom has been on awhile, due to the Germans' stranglehold on China-originating work):

• It is on the high side relative to trainees, part-quals and freshly-quals, due to seniority, experience, technical field speciality and 'extra' responsibilities.
  
• It is pretty much middle-of-the-road, considering practice size and location.
  
• It is on the cheap side nationally, since we are up Nooorth (relative to London, where most of the profession is still concentrated).

[Cyclone]

The prejudice is ridiculous. If people actually saw past the title and the media myths, it'd be great. Still that's not going to happen any time soon.

 

When the only information comes through the media, hearsay and the occasional expensive confusing purchase of their service I can see why people form a bad opinion.

 

Presumably the people who actually know solicitors in a non professional capacity have a very different view. I know I do.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

I think you're worry about the salary unreasonably when thinking about whether the bottom line is reasonable or not.

 

IT contractors (as a comparison) have pretty much zero costs, they pay themselves minimum wage or less, they don't buy any materials (except maybe coffee) and their only expense if often travel to a client site.

They charge £50/hr, and they are guaranteed work for 37.5hrs/week.

A solicitor on the other hand can only charge for the time they actually spend working for a client... And whilst they charge up to 4 times as much, any solicitor running a small business will probably be turning over less than the aforementioned IT contractor and have higher costs (an office for a start).

So based on that comparison I don't think they charge an excessive amount.

[x-GiGgLeS-x]

if this is a family matter and we are paying legal fees and the other party isn't as they get legal aid could we get them to pay all our fees back if we was to win the case.

 

If so what are the chances of a judge ordering for this to happen.