UKC

So a judge has had to suspend a trial after laywers claimed that no one was available to take the case due to the Governments reduction in Legal Aid.

£100k doesn't sound like they're expected to work for peanuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201

I get that Legal aid is fundamentally important, but there has to be limits to the costs, and these limits seem generous.

There is another question as to why defendents accused of benefiting from £5m fraud qualify for legal aid, but thats another matter

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Pure speculation, but how long are they expected to work for that money? Complex fraud trials can take years...

Edited addition - and the amount that they get doesn't equal their take home pay, they'll be paying their staff, etc out of that money.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

There's plenty to be gleaned from an objective examination of the Government's handling of legal aid these last 20 years and in particular the outright dishonest figures regularly fed to the press by the Ministry of Justice. However this particular story is about advocates' contracted fees being reduced by 30% in the middle of their contract and, surprisingly, faced with the choice of terminating the contract or carrying on at the reduced rate, opting for the former.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Well, to put it into perspective, the article says that the case involved 46,000 pages of documents and 864,000 lines of spreadsheet evidence. If we say that a spreadsheet has 20 lines per page, just for argument’s sake, then that’s round about a pound for every page of evidence you have to master, and that’s before you start on stuff like the law and standing up in court for three months or more making submissions, cross-examining or whatever.

I’m not surprised no-one capable will do it for that money.

Nor am I surprised that Judge Leonard found unequivocally that the MOJ’s contention that the PDS could do it was untrue, although he stopped short of describing it as the deliberate lie that many would characterise it as.

It’s not an easy problem, but be in no doubt that anyone with the skills required can earn more elsewhere than the government is offering.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I somehow doubt that every single page will be subjected to one pounds worth of intense scrutiny!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Which is the governments long standing argument for high earnings in the financial sector.

I know a few people in criminal advocacy of one form or another, none of them are happy and most seem to be looking to move into other areas or have already done so.

In reply to timjones:

Have you ever had much to do with QCs when they turn up ready for a trial?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



It might also be worth asking why the defendants need legal aid in light of the amount of money their businesses appear to handle?

In reply to timjones:

It might well be worth it, I agree. I have very little idea about eligibility for legal aid in criminal cases.

Having said that, one can also see that when the state brings the full force of its resources to bear on the task of trying to commit someone who at the moment is presumed innocent to prison for 20 years, that the defendant has to be a pretty rich individual before equality of arms can be obtained without expending significant sums on legal aid. Good lawyers are expensive. Like I say, there isn’t an easy answer.
jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I was under the impression that defenders are much higher paid than prosecutors so surely the better lawyers often work for the defense? Or does that not apply to criminal law?

As a society, we believe in the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial. In order to have one of those, both sides need to present their case. Both those sides need to be paid, so we need legal aid.

Similar to how you don't have to pay for medical care, you don't have to pay for a lawyer. However, you're free to go outside the system and pay for one of your own.

If you get into the debate of who is entitled to legel aid then it isn't easy, and so, we have until now fallen on the side of ensuring fair trials and worrying less about the cost.

A different aspect of the legal aid row, and now a little outdated, but still entertainingly worrying: youtube.com/watch?v=fHhfpCP1kPU&

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don’t really know. Ben Emmerson QC was acting for the prosecution in this case. He’s a very well-respected silk indeed. Whether he was doing the whole thing or just this hearing, I don’t know.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



No and I hope I never have to!

A lot depends on the nature of the documents. I wonder whether many of them would be contracts or pro formas with a lot of duplication?

It's also worth remembering that spreadsheets can be heavily analysed without the need for someone to spend hours going over them line by line.