Time to overhaul the law courts?

[rollwithit]

Or to be accurate, they were protesting about further (new) cuts to Legal Aid fee levels, which are already borderline loss-making.

Viewed like that, the law has always been unaffordable for most ordinary people. That's why Legal Aid was brought about in the first place.

That's actually quite cheap. One thing which most people engaging with solicitor-bashing and focusing on hourly rates never seem to acknowledge, never mind know about, is that the hourly rate is made up of, amongst other things: the solicitor's wage, the support staff wages (secretaries, clerks, etc.) prorata, overheads (firm premises rent/lease, utilities, etc.) prorata and -basically- everything needed to keep a legal firm running, summed up and averaged out (and divied out per the number of fee earners in a firm) as a function of the number of minimum daily chargeable hours practiced by the firm. Because that's essentially all the firm invoices out and gets an income from.

 

 

If the industry charged reasonable prices that everyone could afford, then there wouldn't be a need for legal aid?

And capped at the other end (of the scale) by what the market commands for the specific set of legal skills and service. Common-or-garden areas of practice (e.g. criminal, property) is the cheap end, highly-specialised/big-liability areas of practice (e.g. intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions) is the high end. Then there is the London/not London weighing factor.

 

The media is replete with factual reports of Legal Aid solicitors with a net take home pay around the minimum wage, once all of the above has been stripped from the headline hourly rate. If you want to give (afford) a pay rise for your receptionist, secretaries, etc. where is the extra money going to come from, in a legal firm? :rolleyes:I suggest you acquaint yourself with the CPR and a gentleman by the name of Lord Woolf. To begin with.

 

 

 

 

Other businesses have similar overheads, but the legal profession still seem to be a tad bit expensive. Perhaps if they charged a fair price that everyone could afford, they'd be little need for the taxpayers involvement?

[Qualtrough]

Other businesses have similar overheads, but the legal profession still seem to be a tad bit expensive. Perhaps if they charged a fair price that everyone could afford, they'd be little need for the taxpayers involvement?

 

What's unfair about it? If you think it's too high just rely on the pub know it all instead. You don't need years of expensive training and exams, you just need to know "the score" and "the lingo" to win in court.

[Tommo68]

Solicitor... isn't soliciting a crime?

 

However lawyers do prostitute themselves is their concern but how's this;

 

Solicitor working for someone for free, pro-bono, sexual favours...whatever tells his client's victim if this goes to court its going to cost you a lot of money my costs alone are £165 an hour.

 

I thought he was working for free.

[Moosey]

Solicitor... isn't soliciting a crime?

 

However lawyers do prostitute themselves is their concern but how's this;

 

Solicitor working for someone for free, pro-bono, sexual favours...whatever tells his client's victim if this goes to court its going to cost you a lot of money my costs alone are £165 an hour.

 

I thought he was working for free.

 

That would be breaching the indemnity principle and wouldn't be allowed.

[Anna B]

As usual, those at the top of the salary scale don't want to see their pay cut (even though they could most afford it,) and have the power and influence to stop it happening, but are quite happy to see those at the bottom (who can't afford it) have theirs cut, so you'd all better just shut up about it, and put up with it....

[Moosey]

As usual, those at the top of the salary scale don't want to see their pay cut (even though they could most afford it,) and have the power and influence to stop it happening, but are quite happy to see those at the bottom (who can't afford it) have theirs cut, so you'd all better just shut up about it, and put up with it....

 

That happens in every industry. You think when the guy slashing costs and jobs at RBS looks for ways to save money he'll look at his own massive salary or those of the minions? He'll work out how to make one do the work of two, to save 20k a year that he wouldn't even notice if he lost it.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Qualtrough]

As usual, those at the top of the salary scale don't want to see their pay cut (even though they could most afford it,) and have the power and influence to stop it happening, but are quite happy to see those at the bottom (who can't afford it) have theirs cut, so you'd all better just shut up about it, and put up with it....

 

Yes. That's a free country and a free market. The market rate is set by how much people are prepared to pay for a service. Or would you prefer a Soviet bloc economy where the state controls prices?

 

You still haven't answered my question of how a court is supposed to be fair when that is subjective. The jury and most of the UK think the Duggan outcome is fair, the family don't. If you can work out how to square that circle you'll have an intellectual basis for your broad wishes.

[Anna B]

You mean like as in the miner's strike, when Thatcher sent in the police and was about to send in the troops, that sort of free country?

 

Or do you mean the sort of country where voting simply gets you another expenses fiddling politician who lies through his teeth? That sort of free country?

 

Or a free market economy where the utility and energy companies can put up bills as much as they like and there's nothing we can do about it? That sort of free country?

[Qualtrough]

You mean like as in the miner's strike, when Thatcher sent in the police and was about to send in the troops, that sort of free country?

 

Or do you mean the sort of country where voting simply gets you another expenses fiddling politician who lies through his teeth? That sort of free country?

 

Or a free market economy where the utility and energy companies can put up bills as much as they like and there's nothing we can do about it? That sort of free country?

 

You need a brush for all your generalisations.

 

What's wrong with using troops to move coal and stop the nation grinding to a halt? They were obviously never used against the miners themselves.

 

The expenses scandal is over, jail and forcible retirement dealt with that. Not that all MP's were involved anyway. Ed Miliband was called an 'expenses angel' by the Telegraph, the paper that blew the lid in the first place.

 

UK energy bills are much lower than in Europe and Miliband has said he'll deal with the energy companies one way or another. You could of course ignore him and fold your arms. The energy companies would thank you for it.

 

Now if you could explain how to square the Duggan circle you'll have some meat on the bones of your argument.

[Anna B]

You need a brush for all your generalisations.

 

What's wrong with using troops to move coal and stop the nation grinding to a halt? They were obviously never used against the miners themselves.

 

The expenses scandal is over, jail and forcible retirement dealt with that. Not that all MP's were involved anyway. Ed Miliband was called an 'expenses angel' by the Telegraph, the paper that blew the lid in the first place.

 

UK energy bills are much lower than in Europe and Miliband has said he'll deal with the energy companies one way or another. You could of course ignore him and fold your arms. The energy companies would thank you for it.

 

Now if you could explain how to square the Duggan circle you'll have some meat on the bones of your argument.

 

a) What's wrong with miners wanting a decent wage?

 

What's right about a politician lying in parliament to politicians and to the general voting public that she had no intention of closing 70 pits?

 

b) The expenses scandal is not over inasmuch as politicians who were clearly guilty got away with it through various 'technicalities' - but then that's the law for you.

 

But the voting public will not forget. As for 'forcible' retirement, I wish I could rob my employer and get him to give me a whacking great pension, and a £45,000 resettlement grant.

 

c) Energy companies are ripping off everybody. Just because Europe pays more (if they do) doesn't make it right. And 'Green taxes' are just that. More energy tax to the government on top of everything else. As for Ed Milliband, well he would say that wouldn't he. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

 

As for the Duggan case, I personally think the verdict is probably right, all things considered, and I haven't followed it closely so I don't know as much as the jury. BUT, (and I cannot emphasise this enough,) I suspect part of the reason the family and community are up in arms, is actually another symptom of all of the above.

They believe, as do a fast growing large number of people, that the people who set themselves up as our elders and betters, in other words, the establishment, are no longer to be trusted or respected.

 

They have been proved to be dishonest and corrupt on too many occasions.

 

As far as we (the public) are concerned all justice and fairness has gone out the window. The 'one law for them and another for us' rule is being openly demonstrated on a daily basis. Our noses are being rubbed in it.

 

You can feel the undercurrent of ferment. It's almost palpable. Ignore it at your peril. Unless something is done to redress it, (really address it, not just with propoganda,) it will be every man for himself.