To ask for your support to protect Legal Aid?

[Thistledew]

Access to justice regardless of your financial means has been considered to be the fourth pillar of the Welfare State, and as essential a right as education, medical treatment, and benefits. The proposed cuts to funding for legal aid will deprive some of the most vulnerable people in the UK of effective access to justice.

Those who will be hit the hardest will be

women

children and young people

disabled children

migrants and family members of migrants

victims of environmental pollution or people injured at work

victims of clinical negligence

Many critics of the proposals have pointed out that the proposed cuts are unlikely to produce an overall saving in money. Many people will be forced to try to conduct litigation in person, leading to court time being wasted. In cases relating to housing matters, for instance, where people will only be able to receive legal advice once they are imminently at risk of losing their home, small legal problems that could be dealt with quickly and simply by early legal advice, will build up to big problems that can only be resolved through court intervention.

In asylum cases, justice really will be up for sale to those who can afford it. Under the current proposals, a person will not be entitled to receive funding if they have succeeded in their case but the Home Office appeals to a Higher Court. There would be nothing to stop the Home Office presenting a weak case at the first appeal, and then bringing out their stronger arguments when the person seeking asylum is unrepresented before a senior court.

Next week will see the third reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders bill in parliament. Please support the Sound Off for Justice campaign by signing their petition and using this on-line form to lobby your MP.

Babybarrister. I agree that the situation is different in London and fwiw I think it's better. I'm a huge fan of the provinces but things can get very cosy is some courts.
As I said earlier, the issue of access to justice and the amount lawyers are paid are the same thing as the huge legal aid budget that the govt are determined to slash is composed mainly of what people are paid to conduct cases. I find it astonishing that people can't see that.

Legal aid payments have been cut by 10% in many (all?) areas this month.

If this was an issue about how much lawyers should be paid, then the proposals would be to cut funding further across the board. That would be a logical approach to the supposed problem.

What is being proposed is to stop people having effective access to legal advice all together for certain types of legal problems.

The trouble is that in many areas, such as housing and immigration, the cost will just be shifted to more complex and expensive hearings, rather than addressing the problem early on for less cost.

Anyway blinkineck your complaint seems to be that lawyers are earning too much because they are doing too many cases, not because they are being paid too much per case. I really can't see the problem for people being rewarded for working incredibly hard. Would you suggest that the NHS bill be cut by limiting the number of patients doctors are allowed to treat?

You are wrong to assume I am complaining that people are doing too many cases. It's actually funny that you should say that. Really funny.

"blinkineck Sat 29-Oct-11 18:29:07
I know people who earn this type of money. The majority of their work isn't complex. It's quantity not quality. At the provincial bar you can get through a lot of matters each day. They add up.

blinkineck Sat 29-Oct-11 18:29:07
I think lawyers are paid too much."

I think it was a fair assumption to make

blinkineck, I don't think this should be a discussion about legal aid lawyers' pay because that distracts from the real issue. Many many people will not have access to justice if these reforms go through.

I am complaining they are earning too much! I think your point Thistledew, that they work hard and so deserve it is rubbish. A lot of it is money for old rope imo. The system can't sustain it financially.

What do you think would be a reasonable amount for legal aid barristers to earn?

OK, so if the issues in a case are simple, the lawyer should not get paid (anything? more than minimum wage?). If the issues are complex, they should also risk not getting paid, by being made to take a gamble on a no-win no-fee basis.

Do you also think that doctors should not get paid, or get paid a reduced rate for treating common illnesses? Or dentists not get paid for doing routine checkups?

Don't you see that it will only be the client who will lose out, when I have to look at her papers and tell her, "Sorry Mrs X. Your case is too simple. It is not worth my while financially to help you. But don't worry, it is a simple case, you really should be able to work it out for yourself. Don't be upset, I know the problem is overwhelming to you, but there are lots of people who don't think it is worth you having a lawyer to help you".

There have been hundreds of law centres and firms that do publicly funded work that have had to close in the past few years because they cannot make the financial margins work.

But again, this thread is not about how much lawyers should get paid for the work that they do, but the fact that the government has decided that they should not get paid at all for certain types of work. The people who will lose out are the people who can no longer get legal advice.

signed

mj, It's true that there will always be people who abuse public services whether it be legal aid, benefits or the NHS. I agree with you that those abuses should not be tolerated.

Stopping legal aid for these matters does not seem to be the answer. It would be like abolishing benefits because some people make false claims.

How much should barristers be paid? As long as the independent Bar operates in it's current state it would be impossible to give a definitive figure. I really am a turkey voting for Christmas here but the legal aid system is propping up an outdated and expensive way of practising, namely lawyers having to earn vast amounts of money in order to pay chambers expenses and clerks fees. I think in terms of family law there should be a redirection of investment into more comprehensive forms of mediation and for matters that need some form of judicial intervention, a public-defender type service. These lawyers could be salaried. For crime, a system based on the scottish library system may be more cost effective.

Well I am a legal aid lawyer and I earn less then £25k a year - do you think I am rich on this?
I went to Uni for 6 years and a 2 year training contract paying approx £12k a year. I also worked full time and put myself through night school.
I am lucky I have no Uni debts - some of my colleagues are not so lucky.

I am sick and tired of hearing how much lawyers earn - certainly not in legal aid work - I can charge less than £70.00 an hour - private work earns £180.00 an hour. Obviously this is not profit - the admin requirements of legal aid eat up most of the profit.

I should have become a Doctor - at least people wouldnt presume I am a fat cat because I say I am a legal aid lawyer. I do this job because i love it, I believe everyone (particularly those in dire need) should have access to legal advice.

I don't agree that £25,000 is too much. I am talking about the other end of the spectrum which does exist. Ken Clark will imo make sweeping changes. I am convinced of this. I care passionately about justice. It is thebedrock of our society. We are going to have to take a lot on the chin but in other respects come up with ways to rework the budget that will be given to lawyers.

Please tell us blinkineck how these people you know make £250,000 a year from legal aid funded contact disputes and simple 'money for old rope' cases.

I have just asked a friend who is a legal aid lawyer how it would be possible to earn that much. She said that the only way would be to spend every possible working day, all day, in front of a High Court Judge. She says that would only be for complex, difficult cases. In her experience it would be absolutely impossible to find yourself in that position for 250 days a year.

According to independent research, the median salary of a family barrister is £66,000 and there have been cuts since that research was done.

So, what's the secret?

Sorry I posted and ran earlier, haven't had much MN time in the past few days. But to respond to niceguy2, I don't believe that cuts are necessary to the extent that they are now being made. I believe it is ideological. The government can find money when it suits it and the legal aid budget is comparatively small.

But if insist I pick something, then Trident. Cancel Trident and spend the money on Legal Aid. Or increase income and corporation tax.

I also agree with the point made above that more should be charged for court time in big corporate disputes.

blinkineck I don't understand that you say lawyers are paid too much, and when directed to the actual figure you say, "If there are people earning that amount of money doing family work, which, if the Bar Council's figures are right, there must be, I wouldn't want them anywhere near me if I was in the shit." So that is not enough? They can't be any good if that's what they earn? Please explain.

I thought people might be interested in this article which describes the response to this bill in the House of Lords:

here

Only on mumsnet can you get a flaming for daring to say lawyers get paid too much
As to the demand I 'explain' myself , er....no. I've made my point. You may disagree but don't be so fucking pompous

Blinkineck - I don't think it was a demand that you explain yourself, more an invitation, as what you have said so far is contradictory, and makes no sense. Don't feel you have to explain it though- you are not being cross examined here!

I've said all along that some people are making a killing doing high volume non-complex work. I really don't see how that is in any way contradictory

You said that you think that family lawyers are paid too much.

That they earn so much because they do a high volume of cases.

When it was pointed out to you that the average income is far less than the figures you quoted you found such sums laughable, and said that you would not want a lawyer earning only that amount to represent you, thereby insinuating that they could not be very good (rather than concluding that maybe they were being paid a reasonable rate for a reasonable number of cases).

You think that the family bar should be streamlined (er, less lawyers to do the same number of cases).

But you think lawyers earning lots of money doing lots of cases is definitely a bad thing.

No, no contradiction there at all. Definitely not.

Unless, of course, what you have actually being saying is that people with simple problems should not be entitled to access to legal advice to solve them.

Which is kind of what the government is proposing with the funding cuts.

But that contradicts your statement that you hope that cuts will not lead to lack of access to justice.

And the government has probably realised that determining whether a case is 'money for old rope' or not will impose ridiculous level of complexity in administering legal aid that would cancel out any cost savings made by paying the lawyers less.

So their answer is to take whole areas of law out of the scope of legal aid, regardless of complexity.

Ok, ok. I'll agree with you then. Lawyers do not make too much money. Neither then do bankers or company directors