Legal Aid cuts

[anna]

I am certainly someone who thinks that legal aid needed a reform, however to cut it back as much as this is a little short sited. If they are trying to build confidence back up in the juridical system then this wasn’t the way to go about it.

I am not sure that by saying that cutting legal aid fees for solicitors by 10% necessarily means that you are saying that solicitors are taking a 10% pay cut, after all they can pass that cost to the client who won’t be paying the full costs, but now perhaps will be asked to at least contribute to some of their costs.

I am not sure that this is a totally bad measure as it might stop some of the time wasters out there, whom threaten and take the middle classes to court knowing that it will cost them far more money and so furthering the chances to receive an out of court settlement in their favor. Perhaps this evens out the playing field?

Clearly it was shown that the cuts from taking early plea´s weren’t generating enough of the cost cutting they first thought, and honestly I am not sure that it was a good idea to introduce it in the first place and diminish more of our faith in the system.

I would also say that no win no fees needed to be weeded out of the system as they stopped the ambulance chasers and claims that were costing companies millions each year, not through negligence or other legitament faults, but through greed by certain solicitors companies.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by NTECUK

No uni funding now so if you can't afford a solicitor I doubt putting your kids through uni is an option .

Well thats not a problem. Who needs a degree now, with 80 applications for every graduate job you might as well not go to uni, take the job you're going to end up with anyway 3 years earlier and escape the massive debt.

Did they think sending everyone to uni would just increase the number of graduate jobs?

It's a pretty messed up situation - but one I'd not ever really thought about considering I will not be a legal aid lawyer, rather a commercial one where corporate clients pay the bills.

Ed, saw some interesting figures the other day on barristers who make over £1m a year in legal aid fees. There were at least 10. Shocking.

Perhaps a shake up, rather than a cut, is necessary? Also read that Steven Gerrard got £311,000 in legal aid when trying to deal with the allegation that he'd cheated on his wife. £311,000 is a months wages for him.

Now, I'd not enjoy spending a months wages on legal fees - but it's all relative. There can be absolutely no way giving Steven Gerrard that much money in aid can be justified.

How do you suggest we fix it, rather than butcher it?

The Govt has totally ignored The Law Society's response to their sham consultation paper.

Just as it has ignored the other 5,000 responses.

Ben in response to your quezzie, if they read The Law Society's response, that clarified how to cap legal aid effectively. Basically, stop the abuses, like the one you have highlighted.

The bill had its first reading last week. I've learned today that it's being fast tracked, such that it gets its second reading tomorrow.

Usually fast tracking is for terrorist legislation. It was also used so that the United Kingdom Parliament enacted the Good Friday Agreement so that Norn Iron could become self-governing before everyone changed their minds.

With legal aid, what is the indecent haste, other than to make sure that the deeply flawed Bill is not subject to proper scrutiny?? How the hell did Ken Clarke certify in the Bill that it complies with the ECHR??

The Govt needs to put a cap on the earnings of some lawyers from legal aid. In criminal legal aid for example that monster Levi Bellfield's first trial - for the murder of the French woman Amelie de la Grange - was funded by legal aid - a bill for £2m. £2m!!!!!! And yet civil legal aid rates have been frozen for the last ten years. Yes my friends, civil legal aid lawyers have not had a pay rise for 10 years. I'm not exaggerating.

Plus some of the work has been made fixed fee rather than hourly rate, so you get diddly squat anyway. No wonder it's hard to find a lawyer who does legal aid, and under these latest sham and sh!t proposals, and because of the crap way that civil legal aid is administered, it's quite likely that huge areas of the country will have no civil legal aid lawyer.

The answer, to ensure uniformity, is to get rid of the current administrator the Legal Services Commission, which whilst flawed at least has an independent non executive board, and for the Ministry of Justice to decide whether you qualify.

You pick up the phone, they will outsource it to Bombay, and you will get someone who doesn't understand and doesn't care telling you whether you qualify for legal aid because you want to get divorced because your violent and brutish husband is beating you up. As opposed to going to see a local lawyer who could issue injunction proceedings straight away.

Yes, the Government will decide. So if you want to sue the Government, guess what the answer will be!!!!

Here's a hint. It starts with F and ends in 'off'!!!!

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

Well thats not a problem. Who needs a degree now, with 80 applications for every graduate job you might as well not go to uni, take the job you're going to end up with anyway 3 years earlier and escape the massive debt.

Did they think sending everyone to uni would just increase the number of graduate jobs?

Probably not, but it DID help hide unemployment figures for 2-3 years...

Here in NI, the legal aid system has collapsed, 150 cases are stalled and 200 defendants are without legal counsel because the barristers refuse to work for the amounts they have been told they will be getting, at least one case has collapsed totally and our "justice minister" and the barristers will not back down. The whole thing is a bloody joke.

Ed, a point well made. It's just a shame no one is listening. The Human Rights Act is very quick to protect Somali criminals (example taken from paper this morning) to ensure they're not deported but not fast enough to ensure that everyone that NEEDS legal aid (not wants legal aid) gets it.

Again, read a story while still at Uni that some fixed fee work for barristers - some complex hearings on fixed fee, I will add, don't even make them national minimum wage when you consider the amount of hours they need to put in. And guess what? They simply don't do it - and you get the siutation highlighted by Bedhead above. This cannot be justice.

Ken Clarke has proven to be a complete waste of space before - and here he has not failed to disappiont.

Ed - do you do pro bono?

Originally Posted by specialone

So this stuff aside, you would've liked labour to have stayed in government ? They are the ones who got us in this mess, I don't agree with all the cuts but they are not doing for the sake of it, it's to reduce our debt which labour are directly responsible for.

The Tories have never took over government with a stable economy, it's always been fecked, so they sort it while in office with cuts and difficult decisions, this pi55es of a lot of the public who them vote them out and labour back in who are in a good position at this point economically but will succeed in fecking it all up again, cycle starts again.

+1.

Legal Aid system at work under Labour

http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid...roops-62442832


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...r-1944055.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...html?print=yes

Also interesting

http://ww2.policeoracle.com/forum/fo...blairs-new-car

PS Ed.....you've missed the N from the last word of the thread title.

The legal aid debate shouldn't be about party politics and what abuses of the system have gone on before.

The right to a free and just legal system with fair access to lawyers should be enshrined in stone.

It should be every parties obligation to make it more fair and more efficient.

I don't see yet how these proposals make it fairer or more accessible.

I'm listening though.

Originally Posted by BaP

Ed - do you do pro bono?

Not any more, that was for when I was a real Solicitor

Well my friends, the Bill had a Second Reading today

Truly shameful

My advice - don't get disabled, don't live in a rented house where the landlord won't repair, don't marry a spouse who is going to beat you up, don't have a partner who steals your kids, don't have botched surgery, don't get mugged and stabbed cos you won't get no help in dealing with the CICB, don't get sacked by your boss, and if relevant don't get into a ruck with the Borders & Control Agency over your immigration status.

Ah well, I will have an interesting convo with the MP when I see him in 2 weeks time.