In the news

If you speak to any criminal barrister they will tell you that the vast majority of people who get tax payer funds for Defence lawyers are guilty as sin and only chancing their arm because they can. If people had to pay themselves the number of not guilty pleas would plummet.

And what would be the increase in unsafe convictions would you say, if representation is no longer available to defendants?

Is an independent criminal bar, with tax payer funded income expectations in line with any other specialist, referral profession, really that much of a priority to the general public?

Because we'd have a much more equitable system if only the wealthy could afford a defense.

What does their level of guilt matter?

What is the expectation that people prejudged to be guilty not seek to have the case against them proven?

If you can speak to any criminal barrister and expect the same answer, which of the 2,500 of them gone on record saying so? What research has there been on this?

The guilty are still entitled to representation and/or to plead not guilty. What kind of horrendous country would we be in if they were not?

It’s not a question of people going without representation…there will always be a market. The question is what quality of representation the tax payer is prepared to pay for.
The independent bar is saying we are the best at this and make sure we have the best and fairest system going. And they are right about that. But they also expect incomes that at least begin to approach what they might earn in the private sector.

I’m just curious as to what level of sympathy the general public has for that. You won’t pay for every ill person to have a Harley street consultant on retainer would you?

Are you serious?

Your comparison to healthcare doesn't support your argument, as non-elective care in the NHS is expected to be as good or better in outcome than private care, and it very often is. All the non-urgent (or semi-urgent these days) stuff is where private care is far and away superior.

about which bit?

If you have a two tier legal service then you invite appeals to any convictions awarded against a defence mounted by the lower tier, which I would suggest is maybe not going to be the money saver that you hope for.

But, on the whole I agree with you that povs should have a shit lawyer, because fuck them for being poor.

so how much should we pay for a criminal barrister to keep doing legal aid work?
£100k a year? less? more?

Boris has needed his sinuses repaired.

Further to the nosebag chat a couple of weeks ago: Boris Johnson has operation for perforated septum (maybe).

Your question suggests that there is a right number and a wrong number. It’s childlike.

The answer is that they should be paid what they deserve for the work that they do.

legal aid advocate's fees are fixed - there's only so many cases that can be done by the average criminal barrister every year so earnings are pretty much capped by the legal aid rates set.
the criminal bar is striking because they say the fees are too low. so the govt has to decide what it's prepared to pay to stop the erosion of the profession the bar claims low fees are causing.
so it is very much a question of how much is a criminal barrister worth to society.

Your perception of the earnings of criminal barristers is delusional. In the most successful commercial chambers junior barristers can start their career earning as much as £70K. In criminal or family law sets, that'll be less than £20K, sometimes as little as £12K. Attrition over the last decade has been big and is growing.

The defunding doesn't just affect barrister's wages; many courthouses have been denied enough funds to be open 5 days a week, which slows down cases while also being a hidden way to reduce the money paid to barristers. I could go on, but I doubt it's going to stop you doing your thing. After all, so many criminal barristers are telling you how it really is.

I'm not actually advocating any particular position on this - i'm just curious, as a criminal barrister, how much people think the value we bring to society is worth ;)

the criminal bar is striking because they say the fees are too low.

I have no idea if its true but a friend of mine who is a judge (golf thread here I come again) told me that barristers doing legal aid end up earning less than the living wage based on hours worked.

I'm not actually advocating any particular position on this - i'm just curious, as a criminal barrister, how much people think the value we bring to society is worth ;)

For me, using yout £100k figure, if all 16k barristers in the country were doing legal aid work and being paid £1.6bn of public money, that would be public money well spent.

£1.6bn = 5mi of HS2 track. I'm sure they could find it somewhere.

in the grand scheme of things I agree it's not a huge amount. it's not particularly easy persuading the average daily mail reader with views along the lines of ...

If you speak to any criminal barrister they will tell you that the vast majority of people who get tax payer funds for Defence lawyers are guilty as sin and only chancing their arm because they can. If people had to pay themselves the number of not guilty pleas would plummet.

...that's its money well spent though.
keep an eye on the govt supporting press in the coming days...there is bound to be articles about fat cat lawyers working to undermine law and order...or pictures of striking barristers with designer handbags etc..

The value to society is immense. The monetary value is obviously the sticking point. There used to be a published document in NI showing what legal professionals earned each year via legal aid. I found some of the figures astounding - from memory, top earner wasn’t far off £1,000,000 and their wife was in the top five with over £500,000. I would like to think was hard earned.
Not sure if the list is still published.

Edit. This is a news story but not recent.

1 Attachment

I'm not actually advocating any particular position on this

Then why are you using ridiculous comparisons like Harley Street consultants? People on legal aid aren't seeing the likes of Peter Carter-Ruck defending them.

Legal aid is available for everything from shoplifting to murder and will fund a barrister of appropriate experience / seniority.
The point I was making was that the bar is, and sees itself, as a small specialist referral profession - like medical consultants perhaps, and expects to be remunerated accordingly. The question is whether the public think that’s good value for money.