Heard on the radio this morning that some barristers are not taking legal aid cases anymore because the £150 per hour that they get paid by the tax payer is not enough.
Nice work if you can get it.
Not standing up for the sh1tes but you have to remember that they usually have a team of people, overheads, etc working for them so that amount does not go straight into their pockets.
its €350 per hour in Dublin ??? ::)
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 12, 2010, 10:16:20 AM
Not standing up for the sh1tes but you have to remember that they usually have a team of people, overheads, etc working for them so that amount does not go straight into their pockets.
They wouldnt have a lot of overheads. Lots of Barristers do their own typing , chase up their own work etc. Lots of them have secretarys , lots dont. But either way there wouldnt be a massive outlay in comparison to the money they would receive.
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Yes they worked hard and fair dues to them but surely it has to be proportionate ?.
Example,
£150 an hour for barristers.
£25 an hour for doctors
£12/14 an hour for nurses.
Doesn't seem right.
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this)
Rough calculation for Joe Bloggs QC/SC etc...
40 hrs/week, 52 wks/year
3 x Secretaries @ £12/hour
Office Building Rent @ £6.25/hour (£12k per annum)
Heat/Light/Office Sundries @ £10/hour
Other Expenses that I dont know about £10/hour
Total Expenses therefore £62.25/hour.
This leaves said c**t to complain that he is only earning the guts of £90/hour. Or approx £185k per year before tax. Catch yourself on. Have these t**sers got any grip on reality?
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
How much harder did they work than anyone else ? They went through university and then did a year and half course in the institute to qualify. Not taking anything away from them - anyone that works hard to get to where they are deserve a decent wage - but theres a decent wage and theres taking the piss - and i dont think they worked any harder than a lot of others in lower paid jobs
They also drag cases out for more money and appearances, get defendants to plead at the very last minute with juries already sworn in and do all they can to prolong court appearances and create extra ones. It is a very cynical business.
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor/ or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this.
Rough calculation for Joe Bloggs QC/SC etc...
40 hrs/week, 52 wks/ye
3 x Secretaries @ £12/hour
Office Building Rent @ £6.25/hour (£12k per annum)
Heat/Light/Office Sundries @ £10/hour
Other Expenses that I dont know about £10/hour
Total Expenses therefore £62.25/hour.
This leaves said c**t to complain that he is only earning the guts of £90/hour. Or approx £185k per year before tax. Catch yourself on. Have these t**sers got any grip on reality?
You can bet your life there isnt 3 secretaries - nor do any of them earn £12 an hour - plus most of them work from home - or the Bar Library - im sure they pay something minimal for their office space in Bar Library
I think EC Unique should apologise for his ill advised post.
They pay £7k ish per year for the bar library.
But not every hour of their day is chargeable.
Quote from: Master Yoda on May 12, 2010, 08:52:56 AM
Heard on the radio this morning that some barristers are not taking legal aid cases anymore because the £150 per hour that they get paid by the tax payer is not enough. Nice work if you can get it.
I don't see what your issue is, you stated they are not taking
"your money" ::) as they can get more lucrative work elsewhere. Why should they work for less than they can get elsewhere, I'm sure you wouldn't. Why don't you post of the full story from BBC and then we'll discuss the real issues and implications of this story.
Also would you be giving out if it was nurse moving from the NHS to private healthcare for higher rates?
Supply and demand; those who have turned down the £150 per hour obviously are confident of getting it elsewhere, thats their perogative.
It should mean that other cheaper barristers will get the work, but settle in for the debate of how unfair it is that those on legal aid are not getting the 'best' barristers, so the system is weighted against them, etc.
So what if the top barristers are earning big bucks. As someone said, they're contributing plenty to tax. And any doctor/chartered accountant/architect, etc would charge whatever the hell they could get away with.
I wouldn't get out of bed for €150/hr :P
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this)
Rough calculation for Joe Bloggs QC/SC etc...
40 hrs/week, 52 wks/year
3 x Secretaries @ £12/hour
Office Building Rent @ £6.25/hour (£12k per annum)
Heat/Light/Office Sundries @ £10/hour
Other Expenses that I dont know about £10/hour
Total Expenses therefore £62.25/hour.
This leaves said c**t to complain that he is only earning the guts of £90/hour. Or approx £185k per year before tax. Catch yourself on. Have these t**sers got any grip on reality?
Who the fcuk works this a year? Plus are they not all self employed, so no paid holidays benefits etc.... Further I would be surprised if most are doing 40 hours per week, I'd say there is lots of reading/work brought home.
A lot of our best barristers though take on our legal aid work - suppose a lot depends on relationships barristers have built up with the solicitors they get their work from as well.
If they are fit to turn down the £150 an hour they have plenty coming elsewhere. Though as Rois said - not every hour is chargeable nor is there a steady set wage of £150 per hour for a certain amount of hours a week.
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 11:13:40 AM
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: EC Unique on May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 AM
They worked extremely hard to get to where they are today. I say fair play to them. They will pay a large amount back in tax anyway.
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this)
Rough calculation for Joe Bloggs QC/SC etc...
40 hrs/week, 52 wks/year
3 x Secretaries @ £12/hour
Office Building Rent @ £6.25/hour (£12k per annum)
Heat/Light/Office Sundries @ £10/hour
Other Expenses that I dont know about £10/hour
Total Expenses therefore £62.25/hour.
This leaves said c**t to complain that he is only earning the guts of £90/hour. Or approx £185k per year before tax. Catch yourself on. Have these t**sers got any grip on reality?
Who the fcuk works this a year? Plus are they not all self employed, so no paid holidays benefits etc.... Further I would be surprised if most are doing 40 hours per week, I'd say there is lots of reading/work brought home.
Plenty of people. My standard hours are 42.5/week 48 weeks per year with bank hols extra. Not far away from this when you factor in a few hours overtime. I think those calculations are more than generous.
Tell you what, you tell me how many hours a week they work and I'll repeat it. ::)
Also, please bear in mind that the c**ts are COMPLAINING beacause they ONLY earn this.
Speaking of hourly rates - Legal Services have just given me authority to instruct someone as long as their fee doesnt exceed £241 per hour :o :o - not a barrister though
You have to remember that the law profession is like a cartel, they artifically control the numbers so that they can command a premium, a degree and a couple of years study hardly lifts them to the status of demigods and rates of pay they demand, but they get away with it.
Of course They aren't alone in this tactic lots of well paid proffesions do exactly the same thing, the doctors, dentists and vets etc all delibrately control membership to their exclusive clubs, for instance its no coincidence that dentists are well recompensed and that finding a dentist to treat you can be difficult, supply and demand. You could fill most university courses for dentistry many many times over with intelligent students, but what practising dentist would want that.
People rail against trade unionsim for the average working man but rarely is a word said about the various professional associations and socities that artifically create demand and concomitant added expense for their services or their collective bargaining to demand very large sums of money from the public purse for favourable contracts.
its the solicitors who are the real con artists
the barristers dont always get that kind of money - mostly not from what I hear !
I also am lead to believe that more often than not, the barrister has to come after and effectively fight to get their money from a solicitor !
A friend of mine is a barrister and tells me there is one guy who had to write off €50k of debts as he couldnt get the money from solicitors and was barely making a living with what he did get... this apparantly is par for the course with them all ...
working for yourself is a hard enough business , but worse when you are not guaranteed to get your money !
Doubt that very much - as the onus is by Law Society regulations on the solicitor to pay the Barrister once they have instructed them. Its actually the Barristers fee that is guaranteed - not the solicitors. For example in one such case - client didnt pay the Barristers £2300 fee - solicitors have to pay it out of their office account to the Barrister as they employed the Barrister - its their job to pay the Barrister whether they recover the fees or not. It can be long drawn out process though for Barristers waiting on their money if the case has to be taxed and/ or if the client doesnt pay up.
Quote from: Minder on May 12, 2010, 11:04:05 AM
I think EC Unique should apologise for his ill advised post.
They pay £7k ish per year for the bar library.
What was ill advised about it?
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 11:08:54 AM
Quote from: Master Yoda on May 12, 2010, 08:52:56 AM
Heard on the radio this morning that some barristers are not taking legal aid cases anymore because the £150 per hour that they get paid by the tax payer is not enough. Nice work if you can get it.
I don't see what your issue is, you stated they are not taking "your money" ::) as they can get more lucrative work elsewhere. Why should they work for less than they can get elsewhere, I'm sure you wouldn't. Why don't you post of the full story from BBC and then we'll discuss the real issues and implications of this story.
Also would you be giving out if it was nurse moving from the NHS to private healthcare for higher rates?
Where did I state this big fella?
Quote from: tyrone girl on May 12, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Doubt that very much - as the onus is by Law Society regulations on the solicitor to pay the Barrister once they have instructed them. Its actually the Barristers fee that is guaranteed - not the solicitors. For example in one such case - client didnt pay the Barristers £2300 fee - solicitors have to pay it out of their office account to the Barrister as they employed the Barrister - its their job to pay the Barrister whether they recover the fees or not. It can be long drawn out process though for Barristers waiting on their money if the case has to be taxed and/ or if the client doesnt pay up.
That is the point LB is making. It is the responsibility of the solicitor to pay the barrister. Most of the time that happens fairly quickly but not always. It is not beyond the realms of possibiltiy that the solicitors office will allow a build up of barristers fees to sit in the client account and not disburse them out to the barristers apart from on a piecemeal basis, say on a monthly basis. You could have a barristers fees sitting in an account from the first of the month to the end of the month accumulating interest for the solicitor. if there are wenough of them, and in some firms there would be, this could run to 6 figure sums. A nice little earner for any soliicitor if done right. Not that that would happen.
I can only speak for in here and the minute we get paid for any case the Barristers fee goes directly to them in one lump sum. We would never pay them in installments and if it became clear that the client wasnt going to pay us we would pay the barrister.
I know that in here the Law Soceity do a check every so often on the accounts and different ledgers etc would be checked to see when money was paid in and when it left - suppose this is to check for that very thing. Wouldnt be overly easy to get away with sitting with money in client account that cant be accounted for
Chasing money/not getting paid is not unique to barristers.
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 12:52:36 PM
Chasing money/not getting paid is not unique to barristers.
Nor is charging a market rate for the services you provide.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 12, 2010, 11:09:29 AM
And any doctor/chartered accountant/architect, etc would charge whatever the hell they could get away with.
Agreed - add to that plumber, mechanic, electrician or any other self-employed person. It's a characteristic of a market and will correct itself if it's too high.
I think a lot of people' s annoyance is jealousy. I wouldn't mind getting that type of money
Quote from: Rois on May 12, 2010, 01:14:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 12:52:36 PM
Chasing money/not getting paid is not unique to barristers.
Nor is charging a market rate for the services you provide.
Quote from: haranguerer on May 12, 2010, 11:09:29 AM
And any doctor/chartered accountant/architect, etc would charge whatever the hell they could get away with.
Agreed - add to that plumber, mechanic, electrician or any other self-employed person. It's a characteristic of a market and will correct itself if it's too high.
But its a closed and controlled market so markets force don't apply to it, hence them turning their nose up at £150 an hour, for doing work that isn't exactly rocket science.
Ok I take your point to an extent delboy but there's no lower limit on charges, so the market rate is set by the price people are willing to pay.
If it isn't an incredibly skillful job (like rocket science), why don't more people represent themselves, like Jerome, and drive the market price down? I would argue that good barristers are incredibly skillful. Sure without the best barrister in Tyrone, Ricey wouldn't have three All Ireland medals. :P
Quote from: tyrone girl on May 12, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Doubt that very much - as the onus is by Law Society regulations on the solicitor to pay the Barrister once they have instructed them. Its actually the Barristers fee that is guaranteed - not the solicitors. For example in one such case - client didnt pay the Barristers £2300 fee - solicitors have to pay it out of their office account to the Barrister as they employed the Barrister - its their job to pay the Barrister whether they recover the fees or not. It can be long drawn out process though for Barristers waiting on their money if the case has to be taxed and/ or if the client doesnt pay up.
correct, but maybe things are more stringent in the six counties - I have to admit that I am speaking about the south here !
I know of (from my friend) one case a couple of years ago where a barrister was brought in to advise and work on a company takeover, after it was over, the solicitors firm put in for their costs, forgot to contact said barrister to ask for his charges, and when he queried this a couple of months after, was told by the solicitirs that it was too late as the bill had been sent to the company !
OK this is different as it wasnt a court case, but this is an example and one that is true. I know that my friend has difficulty getting money from solicitirs at times and his colleages accross the board also - esp that poor hoor thats stung for €50k !
Correct BC1 !!
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 12, 2010, 01:51:29 PM
Quote from: tyrone girl on May 12, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Doubt that very much - as the onus is by Law Society regulations on the solicitor to pay the Barrister once they have instructed them. Its actually the Barristers fee that is guaranteed - not the solicitors. For example in one such case - client didnt pay the Barristers £2300 fee - solicitors have to pay it out of their office account to the Barrister as they employed the Barrister - its their job to pay the Barrister whether they recover the fees or not. It can be long drawn out process though for Barristers waiting on their money if the case has to be taxed and/ or if the client doesnt pay up.
correct, but maybe things are more stringent in the six counties - I have to admit that I am speaking about the south here !
I know of (from my friend) one case a couple of years ago where a barrister was brought in to advise and work on a company takeover, after it was over, the solicitors firm put in for their costs, forgot to contact said barrister to ask for his charges, and when he queried this a couple of months after, was told by the solicitirs that it was too late as the bill had been sent to the company !
OK this is different as it wasnt a court case, but this is an example and one that is true. I know that my friend has difficulty getting money from solicitirs at times and his colleages accross the board also - esp that poor hoor thats stung for €50k !
Correct BC1 !!
Surely if the £50k was reasonably and legitimately incurred then the Barrister coupld simply sue the solicitor for the amount due and get a judgment against him if he didn't pay up? Most solicitor firms are partnerships so they partners would be personally liable for the money.
Disciplinary action could follow as well if a report was made to the regulatory authority.
Quote from: Rois on May 12, 2010, 01:46:30 PM
Ok I take your point to an extent delboy but there's no lower limit on charges, so the market rate is set by the price people are willing to pay.
If it isn't an incredibly skillful job (like rocket science), why don't more people represent themselves, like Jerome, and drive the market price down? I would argue that good barristers are incredibly skillful. Sure without the best barrister in Tyrone, Ricey wouldn't have three All Ireland medals. :P
Thats a good question, for one the judicary hate self representation, they don't want to deal with 'amateurs', they much prefer the status quo/cartel system in place.
I still say it isn't rocket science, however its not really feasible for the average person to teach themselves law on the the off chance that they will someday have to represent themselves in court (thankfully most of us will probably never have to set foot in a court). Does that suddenly mean that someone in that profession is worth +£150 an hour, i don't think so.
You have to ask yourself do they command these sums of money because the job/training is so difficult that only a tiny fraction of those applicants lining up with their 1st class degrees in law would be capable of doing the job or if they command those sums because the number of people accepted is strictly limited and controlled so as not to swamp the market and drive down prices.
I'll let the jury decide on that one 8)
this is capitalism- this is how most of the western world's economies work. If you think that you can do the job - go and train for it, and then you too can complain if you only get 150 an hour.
Its fair to say that the system doesn't compensate people in accordance to the benefit they bring to society- but as I keep hearing life isn't fair.
The market is closed and controlled only to the extent that there is a high barrier to entry, a law degree and sufficient training, pretty much like any other job out there where you want to be pretty sure that the person doing it is sufficiently good at it as it has a high impact on your life when you need them.
Quote from: Rav67 on May 12, 2010, 02:08:52 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on May 12, 2010, 01:51:29 PM
Quote from: tyrone girl on May 12, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Doubt that very much - as the onus is by Law Society regulations on the solicitor to pay the Barrister once they have instructed them. Its actually the Barristers fee that is guaranteed - not the solicitors. For example in one such case - client didnt pay the Barristers £2300 fee - solicitors have to pay it out of their office account to the Barrister as they employed the Barrister - its their job to pay the Barrister whether they recover the fees or not. It can be long drawn out process though for Barristers waiting on their money if the case has to be taxed and/ or if the client doesnt pay up.
correct, but maybe things are more stringent in the six counties - I have to admit that I am speaking about the south here !
I know of (from my friend) one case a couple of years ago where a barrister was brought in to advise and work on a company takeover, after it was over, the solicitors firm put in for their costs, forgot to contact said barrister to ask for his charges, and when he queried this a couple of months after, was told by the solicitirs that it was too late as the bill had been sent to the company !
OK this is different as it wasnt a court case, but this is an example and one that is true. I know that my friend has difficulty getting money from solicitirs at times and his colleages accross the board also - esp that poor hoor thats stung for €50k !
Correct BC1 !!
Surely if the £50k was reasonably and legitimately incurred then the Barrister coupld simply sue the solicitor for the amount due and get a judgment against him if he didn't pay up? Most solicitor firms are partnerships so they partners would be personally liable for the money.
Disciplinary action could follow as well if a report was made to the regulatory authority.
I thik the €50k was made up from a few diff sol firms afaik not just the one !
sure all the solicitors have to do is claim they didnt get paid either (have heard this is becomming more common - even if they did actually get the money for said case!!!)
looks like barristers are he new builders - they cant get paid from the subbies !!
Quote from: heganboy on May 12, 2010, 02:38:32 PM
this is capitalism- this is how most of the western world's economies work. If you think that you can do the job - go and train for it, and then you too can complain if you only get 150 an hour.
Its fair to say that the system doesn't compensate people in accordance to the benefit they bring to society- but as I keep hearing life isn't fair.
The market is closed and controlled only to the extent that there is a high barrier to entry, a law degree and sufficient training, pretty much like any other job out there where you want to be pretty sure that the person doing it is sufficiently good at it as it has a high impact on your life when you need them.
Im sorry but i don't agree with you, its the antithesis of capatalism since it isn't an open market, its a tightly controlled and regulated cartel run for the benefit of those employed in the profession.
As an analogy lets say the sparks of the country came together and decided to tightly control the number of people trained to become electricans in such a stringent way as to say only the top 1 % of candidates were accepted for training, within a very short time demand for electricians would outstrip supply and they could command astronomical amounts of pay all whilst claiming they were looking out for our best interests by employing only the very best.
Of course you could say cheap sparks from other countries would undecut them, but to keep the analogy the same lets say the sparks associaton had the ear of government and argued that our electrical system was so different from these other countries that those coming from these countries would have to undertake a conversion course, entry to the course would of course be controlled by you guessed it, the sparks association.
This is generally speaking the positon most of the so called professions have us in at the moment. Capatalims my arse.
Of course you could waffle some stuff about the way of the world and how you to could train as one of the elite electricians and then you to could complain about only getting +£150 an hour ::)
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 02:25:18 PM
I still say it isn't rocket science, however its not really feasible for the average person to teach themselves law on the the off chance that they will someday have to represent themselves in court (thankfully most of us will probably never have to set foot in a court). Does that suddenly mean that someone in that profession is worth +£150 an hour, i don't think so.
Ah c'mon, I'm sure the vast majority of us could turn our hand to a lot of things if we were trained to. That's what happens in the world - any old numpty could draw up their own accounts, fix their own car or cut their own hair (another point - hairdressers are often paid that amount or close to it!) but when something pops up that is slightly different from how it's been done before, the said numpty will be lost because they don't have a breadth of training to deal with the unknown.
My hairdresser is paid about half the £150 but at the same time, the results of their work will not materially affect my life. The same cannot always be said about a barrister's work.
I think its worth pointing out that there are a large proportion of younger barristers who have to seriously struggle for a long time before they make any sort of comfortable living. They have to pay thousands out up front in training and professional fees to enter a profession with no guaranteed work and even less guaranteed payment. I take the point that every profession has issues with unpaid bills but it is a genuine difficulty for barristers.
Yes, there are high fees paid to a percentage of barristers but there are also a large proportion of the Young Bar who genuinely struggle to make ends meet and have to rely on the generousity of friends and family and / or bank loans just to make ends meet. I say that not as an attempt to garner pity as young barristers know the reality of the profession before they enter it but simply as an assertion of the facts of the matter.
Delboy what do you work at?
It must not be rocket science anyway when you can spend most of your time on here talking shite about the value of certain professions and persons employed ;)
Quote from: Rois on May 12, 2010, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 02:25:18 PM
I still say it isn't rocket science, however its not really feasible for the average person to teach themselves law on the the off chance that they will someday have to represent themselves in court (thankfully most of us will probably never have to set foot in a court). Does that suddenly mean that someone in that profession is worth +£150 an hour, i don't think so.
Ah c'mon, I'm sure the vast majority of us could turn our hand to a lot of things if we were trained to. That's what happens in the world - any old numpty could draw up their own accounts, fix their own car or cut their own hair (another point - hairdressers are often paid that amount or close to it!) but when something pops up that is slightly different from how it's been done before, the said numpty will be lost because they don't have a breadth of training to deal with the unknown.
My hairdresser is paid about half the £150 but at the same time, the results of their work will not materially affect my life. The same cannot always be said about a barrister's work.
For a start I doubt very much your hairdresser is paid £75 an hour is that was the case the courts would be empty and all the massive houses around helens bay etc would be filled with hairdressers and not as it is with lawyers and barristers living of the back of public enquries and the public purse. The salon owner may well be living in helens bay but thats a different matter.
As you say we could all cut our own hair if we choose to or we could do as you do and pay £150 for a hair cut, or you could do as i do and pay a tenner for a haircut, you pay 150 because you deem it to be worth that amount, i pay a tenner because thats what i deem it to be worth for a haircut, that variablity in pricing is testament to a proper and open market catering for all customers, this patently does not exist in the legal world, unless you can point me in the direction of someone willing to work for a tenner an hour (fat chance). To make a fair comparison you would have to assume that hairdressers had formed a cartel and it was 150 pound a pop for a haircut or a do it at home with a pair of scissors and hope for the best.
Thats not the case so it doesn't really hold any water.
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Delboy what do you work at?
It must not be rocket science anyway when you can spend most of your time on here talking shite about the value of certain professions and persons employed ;)
Well its something that requires at least as many years training as a barrister, have you never heard of a days holiday you cheeky fupper ;)
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Delboy what do you work at?
It must not be rocket science anyway when you can spend most of your time on here talking shite about the value of certain professions and persons employed ;)
Well its something that requires more years training than a barrister, have you never heard of a days holiday you cheeky fupper ;)
Fcuk me thats worse spending a days holiday arguing on here. Certainly you don't work hard enough or you would be making better use of it :D
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 12, 2010, 03:22:12 PM
Delboy what do you work at?
It must not be rocket science anyway when you can spend most of your time on here talking shite about the value of certain professions and persons employed ;)
Well its something that requires more years training than a barrister, have you never heard of a days holiday you cheeky fupper ;)
Fcuk me thats worse spending a days holiday arguing on here. Certainly you don't work hard enough or you would be making better use of it :D
Circumstances dictate that im house bond at the moment, its either talking shite on here or watching loose women on daytime TV :D
Think i might fire up the xbox for another bash at oblivion though.
QuoteOf course you could waffle some stuff about the way of the world and how you to could train as one of the elite electricians and then you to could complain about only getting +£150 an hour ::)
or i could go and train at something that pays me sufficiently that I don't bitch about other people's wages- oh wait...
Quote from: heganboy on May 12, 2010, 04:35:44 PM
QuoteOf course you could waffle some stuff about the way of the world and how you to could train as one of the elite electricians and then you to could complain about only getting +£150 an hour ::)
or i could go and train at something that pays me sufficiently that I don't bitch about other people's wages- oh wait...
Thats your come back ??? You seem rather to have missed the point anyway, despite your rather tame attempt at a come back im not griping out of jealousy, im calling into question the notion that a self serving cartel such as the legal profession can hold the PUBLIC purse to ransom to the tune of over £150 pound an hour. Why because largely speaking they have autonomy over how many people can enter that profession at any one time, thereby negating market forces. If you are happy to see public money bankrolling this good for you.
I would suggest however that autonomy should be taken out of the hands of the various associations and societies representing the professions so that we could train as many of each as required for our/the general publics needs rather than the benefits/financial gain of the members of these professions. If that meant we trained more people in the legal profession to drive down costs and get cases through the courts quicker so be it.
If it meant training lots more dentists so that we all had ready access to dental treatment even if this made the career of a dentist a tad less lucrative so be it, etc etc.
If you can see any major flaws in this argument please feel free to point them out.
I would consider myself a elite Electrician 8) but I'm bloody not charging €150 an hour...
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on May 12, 2010, 03:19:23 PM
I think its worth pointing out that there are a large proportion of younger barristers who have to seriously struggle for a long time before they make any sort of comfortable living. They have to pay thousands out up front in training and professional fees to enter a profession with no guaranteed work and even less guaranteed payment. I take the point that every profession has issues with unpaid bills but it is a genuine difficulty for barristers.
Yes, there are high fees paid to a percentage of barristers but there are also a large proportion of the Young Bar who genuinely struggle to make ends meet and have to rely on the generousity of friends and family and / or bank loans just to make ends meet. I say that not as an attempt to garner pity as young barristers know the reality of the profession before they enter it but simply as an assertion of the facts of the matter.
+1. The younger puck is currently taking his barrister training course and hasnt actually got the time to do anything other than wipe arses in the old peoples home every saturday and sunday to earn his crust. That and the generousity of the parents is what is seeing him through.
I know a barrister that had a £15k overdraft for a fair few years and had to sell her house to get rid of the debt she was in.
Quote from: Rois on May 12, 2010, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 02:25:18 PM
I still say it isn't rocket science, however its not really feasible for the average person to teach themselves law on the the off chance that they will someday have to represent themselves in court (thankfully most of us will probably never have to set foot in a court). Does that suddenly mean that someone in that profession is worth +£150 an hour, i don't think so.
Ah c'mon, I'm sure the vast majority of us could turn our hand to a lot of things if we were trained to. That's what happens in the world - any old numpty could draw up their own accounts, fix their own car or cut their own hair (another point - hairdressers are often paid that amount or close to it!) but when something pops up that is slightly different from how it's been done before, the said numpty will be lost because they don't have a breadth of training to deal with the unknown.
My hairdresser is paid about half the £150 but at the same time, the results of their work will not materially affect my life. The same cannot always be said about a barrister's work.
I think I'll become a hairdresser....€75 an hour :o nice work if you can get it
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: heganboy on May 12, 2010, 04:35:44 PM
QuoteOf course you could waffle some stuff about the way of the world and how you to could train as one of the elite electricians and then you to could complain about only getting +£150 an hour ::)
or i could go and train at something that pays me sufficiently that I don't bitch about other people's wages- oh wait...
Thats your come back ??? You seem rather to have missed the point anyway, despite your rather tame attempt at a come back im not griping out of jealousy, im calling into question the notion that a self serving cartel such as the legal profession can hold the PUBLIC purse to ransom to the tune of over £150 pound an hour. Why because largely speaking they have autonomy over how many people can enter that profession at any one time, thereby negating market forces. If you are happy to see public money bankrolling this good for you.
I would suggest however that autonomy should be taken out of the hands of the various associations and societies representing the professions so that we could train as many of each as required for our/the general publics needs rather than the benefits/financial gain of the members of these professions. If that meant we trained more people in the legal profession to drive down costs and get cases through the courts quicker so be it.
If it meant training lots more dentists so that we all had ready access to dental treatment even if this made the career of a dentist a tad less lucrative so be it, etc etc.
If you can see any major flaws in this argument please feel free to point them out.
If you trained 100s of people every year in the legal profession the numbers would eventually dwindle down to current levels but there simply isn't enough work going around for the numbers at the minute never mind a huge influx. All your proposal would succeed in doing is costing hundreds of people thousands of pounds securing qualifications which eventually the vast majority will have to abandon as is the case in England where less than a quarter of new trained barrister, all whom who would have spent 5 figure sums in training, manage to secure a pupillage.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on May 12, 2010, 05:40:07 PM
Quote from: delboy on May 12, 2010, 05:17:33 PM
Quote from: heganboy on May 12, 2010, 04:35:44 PM
QuoteOf course you could waffle some stuff about the way of the world and how you to could train as one of the elite electricians and then you to could complain about only getting +£150 an hour ::)
or i could go and train at something that pays me sufficiently that I don't bitch about other people's wages- oh wait...
Thats your come back ??? You seem rather to have missed the point anyway, despite your rather tame attempt at a come back im not griping out of jealousy, im calling into question the notion that a self serving cartel such as the legal profession can hold the PUBLIC purse to ransom to the tune of over £150 pound an hour. Why because largely speaking they have autonomy over how many people can enter that profession at any one time, thereby negating market forces. If you are happy to see public money bankrolling this good for you.
I would suggest however that autonomy should be taken out of the hands of the various associations and societies representing the professions so that we could train as many of each as required for our/the general publics needs rather than the benefits/financial gain of the members of these professions. If that meant we trained more people in the legal profession to drive down costs and get cases through the courts quicker so be it.
If it meant training lots more dentists so that we all had ready access to dental treatment even if this made the career of a dentist a tad less lucrative so be it, etc etc.
If you can see any major flaws in this argument please feel free to point them out.
If you trained 100s of people every year in the legal profession the numbers would eventually dwindle down to current levels but there simply isn't enough work going around for the numbers at the minute never mind a huge influx. All your proposal would succeed in doing is costing hundreds of people thousands of pounds securing qualifications which eventually the vast majority will have to abandon as is the case in England where less than a quarter of new trained barrister, all whom who would have spent 5 figure sums in training, manage to secure a pupillage.
Read it again, it would do the exact opposite, if you were training people on the basis of NEED (independently decided) then you would only train up the numbers that are required, the point of reckoning would be after the law degree but before the postgraduate studies so that the numbers coming through the system was approxiamate to the number of pupillage positions specifcally so that lots of people didn't waste years of study and tens of thousands in the vain hope of getting a position.
The government itself could offer positions which actually paid people rather than leave them in debt with the understanding that people spend a certain amount of their early career in legal aid and that they continue to do a set amount throughout their career so that experience is not lost. This of course would require a massive change in the paradigm and present mindset.
If as you assert that there is already too many people chasing too little work (i can't say i agree with you though) then this would also address that problem, nobody is suggesting that those in the legal world be reduced to minimum wage after all.
You could really replace barrister with any number of professions.
Delboy, you lost the argument as soon as you said "it's not rocket science".
What about John Terry and these boys on 180k per week for playing football. Doctors get f**k all when you consider that their job is saving peoples lives.
Quote from: The Real Laoislad on May 12, 2010, 05:34:51 PM
I think I'll become a hairdresser....€75 an hour :o nice work if you can get it
And that's a local hairdresser in Strabane - my sisters regularly pay £95 every six weeks, plus additional for special events, for a Belfast hairdresser.
I dread to think what they charge in the south!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 12, 2010, 06:27:13 PM
You could really replace barrister with any number of professions.
Delboy, you lost the argument as soon as you said "it's not rocket science".
Thats rather the point im driving at if you if you look back on my posts on this subject, its actually even more pertinent for professions like dentistry etc which could certainly do with an influx of practioners.
I forgot you are the elected board arbitrer of arguements ::) i apologise to you for my arguement losing comment on 'rocket science', i promise to say 10 hail POGs as a penance for my transgressions :-*
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this)
You don't think a Senior Accountant would charge £150/hr?!
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 12, 2010, 07:44:49 PM
Quote from: Franko on May 12, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
Balls. They will have worked no harder than any doctor or chartered accountant/architect/engineer who would never dream of charging anything like that. (Never mind 'withdraw services' because you were 'only' getting this)
You don't think a Senior Accountant would charge £150/hr?!
£450 odd wouldn't be an uncommon chargeout rate, whether they actually get that from the client is debateable and depends on the job.
Re barristers, in the south there are something like 1700 of them, at least a 1000 don't make a living from it, the next few hundred struggle by, another couple of hundred do quite well and the top 50 odd make huge money.
Re doctors, your normal gp in the south charges at least €50 per appointment, they spend 15 mins max per appointment, so say 3 an hour, that's €150 less costs, easily clearing €100.
Consultants in the south make €220K from the state for a 35 hour week (of which 20% of their time can be spent carrying out private work), i'd say that's a pretty generous hourly rate too.
These are all valid points.
You seem to be forgetting, however, that it is only the barristers that are complaining that this rate of pay is not enough.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 12, 2010, 06:27:13 PM
You could really replace barrister with any number of professions.
Delboy, you lost the argument as soon as you said "it's not rocket science".
Rocket science isn't that hard.
The other one people throw about is brain surgery, why the brain, they can't do much with the brain at all, nor do they understand it. When was the last time someone had a brain transplant?
Thats nonsense! Neuroscience/surgery is the toughest, longest post doctoral residency program!
I wasnt really planning on getting involved in this debate but here goes:
1) we are talking only a very small number of cases where this level of fee is payable, known as very high cost cases (examples include murders/ terrorism cases - all of which are usually high profile)
2) the people on here that are complaining about the amounts being paid in legal aid will also be the first ones to complain when someone is the victim of a miscarriage of justice ie only rich people can get aquitted because they can affard the best brrister.
3) it is very hard to make it as a barrister and it is not an easy job. if peple think it is so easy they should simply represent themselves.
personally speaking i think the current rate of remuneration acceptable but that is a matter for the barristers to argue themselves. the problem i have is that some posters on here try to make it out as if the bar is some sort of conspiracy organisation with the sole objective of fleecing the public.
Court hears Carroll legal bill case is settled
An action by one of the biggest law firms in the country against developer Liam Carroll for €3.3m in legal fees has been settled.
William Fry had taken the action in the Commercial Court over Mr Carroll's failure to pay the remainder of a €4.8m bill after claiming it was excessive.The bill arises from a 63-day Commercial Court action in 2009 over the redevelopment of the Square Shopping Centre in Tallaght.
That case was dismissed and an order for costs in Mr Carroll's favour was made. However, a stay on that applies pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
William Fry conducted Mr Carroll's defence in the case and served a bill of costs for €4.87m on him.
Mr Carroll paid €1.4m of that during the hearing and the firm claimed €3.3m was outstanding.
The developer had disputed this claiming the bill was excessive and a previous hearing was told he had instructed other solicitors to bring a complaint to The Law Society.
The Commercial Court was today told the case had been settled and could be adjourned generally on consent.
Solicitors withdrawing from cases now wholesale :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13147144