Unemployed Solicitors ?

johnnyskeleton · 17-11-2008 7:57pm

maidhc wrote: »

In fairness, e conveyancing is rightfully a government initiative, and reforming the systems that govern the ownership of land should not be the concern of private individuals.

But having said that, most solicitors work in dickensian manner.

Not like the ultra modern bar, who did away with all that dining, ranking by year of call and wearing silly costumes years ago.

McCrack · 17-11-2008 11:01pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not like the ultra modern bar, who did away with all that dining, ranking by year of call and wearing silly costumes years ago.

BAM

Jo King · 18-11-2008 3:22pm

maidhc wrote: »

In fairness, e conveyancing is rightfully a government initiative, and reforming the systems that govern the ownership of land should not be the concern of private individuals.

But having said that, most solicitors work in dickensian manner.

land ownership is a different concept from conveyancing. conveyancing is the transfer of the interests in property from one person to another. Conveyancing may be time consuming to do and complicated but my point is the the profession seems to expect the public to pay for it. The budget airlines refused to accept that they should simply accept charges levied on them and ppass them onto consumers. They rightly realised that the public simply would not travel at all so they railed against all charges and cost increasing activities imposed on them. Not so the legal profession. One branch of the legal; profession has a monopoly on conveyancing and it is unrealistic to expect the government to reform it of its own volition. Conveyancing is only one aspect of legal practice where the clients are expected to pay for inefficency and it is not even the worst example. Clients have to pay solicitors to stand around court buildings for hours or even days waiting for a case to be called on. Clients have to pay solicitors to stand in queues in the Central Office of the High Court. Any wonder people do not want to pay for it.

Maximilian · 18-11-2008 4:11pm

Jo King wrote: »

land ownership is a different concept from conveyancing. conveyancing is the transfer of the interests in property from one person to another. Conveyancing may be time consuming to do and complicated but my point is the the profession seems to expect the public to pay for it. The budget airlines refused to accept that they should simply accept charges levied on them and ppass them onto consumers. They rightly realised that the public simply would not travel at all so they railed against all charges and cost increasing activities imposed on them. Not so the legal profession. One branch of the legal; profession has a monopoly on conveyancing and it is unrealistic to expect the government to reform it of its own volition. Conveyancing is only one aspect of legal practice where the clients are expected to pay for inefficency and it is not even the worst example. Clients have to pay solicitors to stand around court buildings for hours or even days waiting for a case to be called on. Clients have to pay solicitors to stand in queues in the Central Office of the High Court. Any wonder people do not want to pay for it.

The airline comparison is just daft. A better comparision would be the airline complaining about having to pay pilots, not pay airport charges. Needless to say, that wouldn't fly.

Buying property is the most expensive investment most people will ever make in their life and the ramifications therefore when there is a problem can be extremely severe, not to mention expensive. What kills me is that people will happily pay an auctioneer 1% for putting an ad in the paper and having someone just out of college shows folks around, yet grumble incessantly about paying their solicitor half that amount, who puts a huge amount of time into the transaction to protect their interests and effectively insures the client as regards the title.

The law is complicated. It's not complicated so that solicitors can make money out of it. The law is complicated because it serves to protect people, property, the public, the environment etc. You are suggesting they do away with that? Why not do away with all laws at that? The downside with legislation is that it creates red tape, bureaucracy, and ultimately extra work and effort from everyone.

I agree that hanging around a Court all day is waste of time and money. you can't blame the legal profession for that however. That one is on the Government.

Jo King · 18-11-2008 4:41pm

Maximilian wrote: »

The airline comparison is just daft. A better comparision would be the airline complaining about having to pay pilots, not pay airport charges. Needless to say, that wouldn't fly.

Buying property is the most expensive investment most people will ever make in their life and the ramifications therefore when there is a problem can be extremely severe, not to mention expensive. What kills me is that people will happily pay an auctioneer 1% for putting an ad in the paper and having someone just out of college shows folks around, yet grumble incessantly about paying their solicitor half that amount, who puts a huge amount of time into the transaction to protect their interests and effectively insures the client as regards the title.

The law is complicated. It's not complicated so that solicitors can make money out of it. The law is complicated because it serves to protect people, property, the public, the environment etc. You are suggesting they do away with that? Why not do away with all laws at that? The downside with legislation is that it creates red tape, bureaucracy, and ultimately extra work and effort from everyone.

I agree that hanging around a Court all day is waste of time and money. you can't blame the legal profession for that however. That one is on the Government.

The budget airlines try to avoid paying pilots standing around doing nothing. They have made every attempt to speed up turn around times.
The law might be complicated but it is more complicated than in other common law jurisdictions such as th U.K. and the U.S. They seem to get on fine.
The legal profession is quite happy to hang around all day if the client is willing to pay. Balme the government is the easy answer, however the reality is that governments tend to be reactive and not proactive. The profession is sitting on its hands instead of insisting on improvements. The result is that the clients are staying away and refusing to pay for it.

Maximilian · 18-11-2008 5:14pm

Jo King wrote: »

The budget airlines try to avoid paying pilots standing around doing nothing. They have made every attempt to speed up turn around times.
The law might be complicated but it is more complicated than in other common law jurisdictions such as th U.K. and the U.S. They seem to get on fine.
The legal profession is quite happy to hang around all day if the client is willing to pay. Balme the government is the easy answer, however the reality is that governments tend to be reactive and not proactive. The profession is sitting on its hands instead of insisting on improvements. The result is that the clients are staying away and refusing to pay for it.

Well now that's just nonsense. How can you say whether our law is any more or less complicated? I know of several jurisdictions, particularly in eastern europe which are infinitely worse. Yes our land law is in dire need of reform and thankfully that's coming. I would hope that means less time spent by us on individual files and savings for clients also.

Blaming the government is not easy, its simply a fact. Only the government can appoint and fund more judges & Courts and thus reduce waiting times. The govt. & the Oireactas make the laws, as they should.

And who do you think has done the most to point out problems and try to improve matters. The lawyers have. The Law Society has, the Bar Council has, the various Bar Associations have. A far cry from sitting on their hands. Jesus, read the Law Society Gazette - it's full of commentary on the law and suggestions as to how it should be improved. It's been doing that for years and years. You are just picking arguments out of the air without anything to back them up. It's a little irritating.

In any event, the average lawyer is far too busy looking after the work in front of them than to consider what needs changing. What on earth makes you think its is their responsibility in the first place? Do construction companies come up with the building regulations, do developers make the planning law or do the cops write the criminal law.

Gangu · 18-11-2008 5:17pm

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Thanks Nuac. It's amazing, all I'm trying to do is stop people falling into the traps that I fell into, along with countless colleagues who are in dire financial straits, and no one wants to listen.

Both of you sound about right.

I think you need a good few years PQE under your belt to be able to deal with the curve balls practice will inevitably throw at you when you are out on your own.

Jo King · 18-11-2008 6:29pm

Maximilian wrote: »

Well now that's just nonsense. How can you say whether our law is any more or less complicated? I know of several jurisdictions, particularly in eastern europe which are infinitely worse. Yes our land law is in dire need of reform and thankfully that's coming. I would hope that means less time spent by us on individual files and savings for clients also.

Blaming the government is not easy, its simply a fact. Only the government can appoint and fund more judges & Courts and thus reduce waiting times. The govt. & the Oireactas make the laws, as they should.

And who do you think has done the most to point out problems and try to improve matters. The lawyers have. The Law Society has, the Bar Council has, the various Bar Associations have. A far cry from sitting on their hands. Jesus, read the Law Society Gazette - it's full of commentary on the law and suggestions as to how it should be improved. It's been doing that for years and years. You are just picking arguments out of the air without anything to back them up. It's a little irritating.

In any event, the average lawyer is far too busy looking after the work in front of them than to consider what needs changing. What on earth makes you think its is their responsibility in the first place? Do construction companies come up with the building regulations, do developers make the planning law or do the cops write the criminal law.

There are no common law jurisdictions in Eastern Europe. There are books in the UK and the US which show members of the public how to do their own conveyancing. Nobody would try that here. I never said that it was the responsibility of the legal profession to change things. I am saying that there is no good complaining about clients not being willing to pay for inefficiency.
If the average lawyer is so busy why are so many of them being laid off?

nuac · 18-11-2008 11:06pm

Yes Jo King there can be a certain amount of waiting around at courts and other tribunals such as EAT etc.

Solicitors can and do a fair amount to minimise this e.g. arranging through their local bar association to liase with judges and registrars to improve listing arrangements, group cases of a similar nature etc together, email listing, exchange reports, have experts meet before trial etc etc.

If one goes to court frequently you can develope ways of using waiting time productively e.g. to work on other files - most bar rooms are now well equipped. It is also an opportunity to negotiate other cases with colleagues. You can use the new technology to deal with phone calls and emails.

You seem to confuse lawyers with legislators - the professions may propose reforms; action on these is a matter for An Oireachtas. We have to do our best to work the system we have.

Jo King · 18-11-2008 11:38pm

nuac wrote: »

Yes Jo King there can be a certain amount of waiting around at courts and other tribunals such as EAT etc.

You seem to confuse lawyers with legislators - the professions may propose reforms; action on these is a matter for An Oireachtas. We have to do our best to work the system we have.

I am not confusing lawyers with legislators. Many inefficiencies are administrative. My point being that the profession has tolerated it and profited from it for far too long. If prasctice cannot be made pay it is because it is delivering poor value.A friend of mine is in a Circuit Court case at the moment. An adjournment was needed because his solicitors got an affidavit the day before a motion was to be heard. His solicitor turns up with a barrister and the other side's solicitor and barrister turned up to oppose the application for an adjournment. The barrister for the opposing side admitted that it was virtually inevitable that the adjournment would be granted.
Four lawyers spend a morning hanging around with the inevitable result being an adjournment. Each has to be paid for her trouble and each will feel that unless there is a couple of hundred euro per hour that they are working for nothing. The clients are eventually going to get massive bills for this sort of nonsense.

maidhc · 19-11-2008 12:02am

Jo King wrote: »

I am not confusing lawyers with legislators. Many inefficiencies are administrative. My point being that the profession has tolerated it and profited from it for far too long. If prasctice cannot be made pay it is because it is delivering poor value.A friend of mine is in a Circuit Court case at the moment. An adjournment was needed because his solicitors got an affidavit the day before a motion was to be heard. His solicitor turns up with a barrister and the other side's solicitor and barrister turned up to oppose the application for an adjournment. The barrister for the opposing side admitted that it was virtually inevitable that the adjournment would be granted.
Four lawyers spend a morning hanging around with the inevitable result being an adjournment. Each has to be paid for her trouble and each will feel that unless there is a couple of hundred euro per hour that they are working for nothing. The clients are eventually going to get massive bills for this sort of nonsense.

1) Get rid of Barristers. They are a waste of time and money, seriosly, the time when solicitors were lucky to have a law degree is well gone. There are times when I brief barristers on certain issues and I know I could run the case better myself (but would never be allowed!).

2) Have proper case managment. I was talking to an Australian Federal Magistrate (something similar to a circuit court judge, let the magistrate bit not fool you too much) last week at a conference. They seem to intensively case manage, registrars barely exist as we know them, and things seem to move at a decent pace because of it.

3) Law firms need to get efficient. I know of one law firm in Europe that has four partners, but no office or secretary. Amongst others they have on their books Siemens and the European Commission.

But the leadership cannot come from the legal profession really. Most solicitors are too busy.

Johnny Utah · 19-11-2008 1:45am

TheDemiurge wrote: »

Thanks Nuac. It's amazing, all I'm trying to do is stop people falling into the traps that I fell into, along with countless colleagues who are in dire financial straits, and no one wants to listen.

TheDemiurge,

I'm willing to listen, and I appreciate any honest advice I can get. Do you have any opinion on the predicament I'm in? (I posted it on the other thread)

johnnyskeleton · 19-11-2008 7:01pm

Jo King wrote: »

Four lawyers spend a morning hanging around with the inevitable result being an adjournment. Each has to be paid for her trouble and each will feel that unless there is a couple of hundred euro per hour that they are working for nothing. The clients are eventually going to get massive bills for this sort of nonsense.

To be fair, a lot of this isn't the lawyers' fault, but the fault of the client. There are many insurance firms or insurance funds who operate on a "fight everything" basis. This means that they will contest every motion, every adjournment, every little thing, even if it is against legal advice to consent/settle.

By the by, barristers usually don't get paid for adjournments in the circuit court, or else get a very small fee for them, unless there is a costs thrown away order.

johnnyskeleton · 19-11-2008 7:09pm

maidhc wrote: »

1) Get rid of Barristers. They are a waste of time and money, seriosly, the time when solicitors were lucky to have a law degree is well gone. There are times when I brief barristers on certain issues and I know I could run the case better myself (but would never be allowed!).

Why not get rid of solicitors? Intorduce direct client access to barristers and see which can provide the better value for money. While I don't doubt there are a lot of barristers who are not up to scratch, you don't have to brief those particular ones. Also, it is very easy to sit back and say that you can run something better yourself, but it's another thing to actually do it.

maidhc wrote: »

2) Have proper case managment. I was talking to an Australian Federal Magistrate (something similar to a circuit court judge, let the magistrate bit not fool you too much) last week at a conference. They seem to intensively case manage, registrars barely exist as we know them, and things seem to move at a decent pace because of it.

It's a question of whether there should be more judges and less delay or less judges and more delay. Under case managed systems, if a case settles then the judge has nothing to do that day. I agree that case managment is a good idea, but on the other hand the system we have encourages settling cases. While waiting around can be annoying, our system of fees is based on a per case, not per hour basis. The per hour basis can be equally, if not more, inefficient and wasteful of a client's money.

dazza21ie · 19-11-2008 11:06pm

maidhc wrote: »

1) Get rid of Barristers. They are a waste of time and money, seriosly, the time when solicitors were lucky to have a law degree is well gone. There are times when I brief barristers on certain issues and I know I could run the case better myself (but would never be allowed!).

If you are so confident in doing better yourself then why not give it a go. A solicitor has an equal right of audience in any court. Or are you just all talk?

dats_right · 20-11-2008 8:48am

dazza21ie wrote: »

A solicitor has an equal right of audience in any court.

Yes, that it what the legislation says alright, but I wonder what view your professional indemnity insurers would take if things went pear-shaped?

Jo King · 20-11-2008 3:46pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a question of whether there should be more judges and less delay or less judges and more delay. Under case managed systems, if a case settles then the judge has nothing to do that day. I agree that case managment is a good idea, but on the other hand the system we have encourages settling cases. While waiting around can be annoying, our system of fees is based on a per case, not per hour basis. The per hour basis can be equally, if not more, inefficient and wasteful of a client's money.

In England, after case management was introduced, the number of cases being heard in the High Court fell. The current system does not encourage settlements.
It encourages constant motions and adjournments and practitioners leaving everything to the last minute or after, with cases drsagging on for years. The Commercial Court is case managed and cases settle before hearing, often as a result of mediation and those cases which are heard proceed more quickly because the issues in dispute are agreed beforehand. The current system has barristers double booking themselves and handing over briefs at the last minute because no one ever knows if a case will run or not until it actually starts.

Amazotheamazing · 20-11-2008 4:13pm

dazza21ie wrote: »

If you are so confident in doing better yourself then why not give it a go. A solicitor has an equal right of audience in any court. Or are you just all talk?

Quite a lot of solicitors are starting to go down the route of dispensing with barristers. More and more documents can be cut and pasted into existence rather than the botheration of having a barrister do it for you. This is a risky strategy, imo.

maidhc · 20-11-2008 4:50pm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Quite a lot of solicitors are starting to go down the route of dispensing with barristers. More and more documents can be cut and pasted into existence rather than the botheration of having a barrister do it for you. This is a risky strategy, imo.

I'm not sure about being "cut and pasted" into existance. Certainly for a complex and technical case (that the solicitor may not fully understand), a barrister knowledgable in that area is a must.

However I regard myself as being better at drafting circuit court Civil Bills in certain areas of law than a barrister, if for no other reason than I am more highly qualified than most of them. I have instructed barristers on IT issues, and issues concerning motor vehicles, and at times found the process cringeworthy.

I am however quite junior, and if I am told to hire x barrister, unfortunately I just have th grin and bear, for the moment anyway.

johnnyskeleton · 20-11-2008 8:09pm

dats_right wrote: »

Yes, that it what the legislation says alright, but I wonder what view your professional indemnity insurers would take if things went pear-shaped?

Would they not say that advocates are immune from being sued for in-court performance? I don't keep up to date with international developments in this area, but I understand it is still the law in Ireland.

johnnyskeleton · 20-11-2008 8:14pm

Jo King wrote: »

In England, after case management was introduced, the number of cases being heard in the High Court fell. The current system does not encourage settlements.
It encourages constant motions and adjournments and practitioners leaving everything to the last minute or after, with cases drsagging on for years. The Commercial Court is case managed and cases settle before hearing, often as a result of mediation and those cases which are heard proceed more quickly because the issues in dispute are agreed beforehand. The current system has barristers double booking themselves and handing over briefs at the last minute because no one ever knows if a case will run or not until it actually starts.

To be fair, there are motions and adjournments in the Commercial Court as well. That said, I am not slating case management and setting aside days for a single case only. However, we would need a lot more judges for this to happen, and in the short term it would put trial dates back to oblivion. I would be in favour of it though, as it would mean work is spread around more evenly and rather than having a few people sitting on a number of cases in the same courtroom, they will be forced to pass them out to others, particularly if the new judges are sitting in provincial sittings.

dats_right · 21-11-2008 9:52am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would they not say that advocates are immune from being sued for in-court performance? I don't keep up to date with international developments in this area, but I understand it is still the law in Ireland.

Didn't the Houe of Lords recently abolish the advocate's immunity in English Law in the case of Hall -v- Simmons [2000] All ER 673? I'm not aware of any Irish authority on the point, but I would have thought it highly likely or at the very least probable that our courts would be influenced by this persuasive authority.

I would certainly have thought that a solicitor is leaving himself open for a claim of negligence if he/she acts in such a manner, outside the scope of their usual experience, training and expertise. Especially, when the duty owed to a client is that of a reasonably careful and competent solicitor, which in the normal course of events would probably mean instructing counsel in the overwhelming majority of Circuit and High Court cases.

Also on a practical level:
i) I wouldn't have thought that m'lud, sorry Judge as they are now called wouldn't be too enamoured by mr solicitor appearing before him, given that said Judge was in all likelihood previously a practising barrister himself/herself. So the exercise would probably be counter productive, only serving to massage the ego of said solicitor and could result in not necessarily getting the best outcome for your client.

Not only this, but us solicitors have long suspected that often when we arrive on the morning of a trial, unbeknownst to litigants and their solicitors, counsel for the respective sides have already had a casual little chat and have more or less agreed a settlement, so on the morning of the trial their respective efforts look heroic and a settlement is somehow reached from nowhere. Such casual, yet important, chats between barristers would be very much more difficult if solicitors had to be involved.

And lest not forget, that if a solicitor really wants to be an advocate that much there is nothing stopping them joining the ranks of m'learned friends and getting their very own wig and gown.

ii) It would also be very difficult for a solicitor to combine running a busy law firm and all that entails with being in the Four Courts all morning hopping from court to court on various pre-trail motions, trials, settlement talks, etc, etc Something would have to give and the solicitor is unlikely to have the time to really keep his advocacy skills sharp.

Also the training that trainee solicitors receive in advocacy is bordering on the farcial, sure on my recent excursion to become learned in the practice of law at Blackhall Place there was significantly more time devoted to spirituality and meditation than advocacy! Which I suppose is great for body and mind but not so great for presenting cases in the Courts. So if the solicitors profession were really serious about exercising their rights of audience serious improvements in advocacy training would be required.

I for one am very much in favour of the current structure of the profession and would be very much opposed to a fusion or watering down of the distinctions between the respective branches. Such structures have served us well now for centuries and there is no compelling arguments to fundamentally change them. I would say that I have enormous respect for our colleagues at the Bar and highly value their professionalism, expertise and capabilities. I am ceratinly loath to bash them for the sake of it.

Jo King · 21-11-2008 10:35am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To be fair, there are motions and adjournments in the Commercial Court as well. That said, I am not slating case management and setting aside days for a single case only. However, we would need a lot more judges for this to happen, and in the short term it would put trial dates back to oblivion. I would be in favour of it though, as it would mean work is spread around more evenly and rather than having a few people sitting on a number of cases in the same courtroom, they will be forced to pass them out to others, particularly if the new judges are sitting in provincial sittings.

There are motions and adjournments but not because somebody has been sitting on a file for six months! In the commercial court if you are given a week to do something you had better have it done within seven days. Cases are only listed when it is certain they are going ahead. There is little or no waste of judges time. If a case ends early the judge can do other work, such as hearing an injunction application or write a judgement. In personal injury cases 10 cases are listed and some will be adjourned on consent and some will be heard depending on the availability of courtrooms and judges. Some will be left sitting around wondering if they will be heard for days only to be put back to the next law term.

Jo King · 21-11-2008 11:00am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While waiting around can be annoying, our system of fees is based on a per case, not per hour basis. The per hour basis can be equally, if not more, inefficient and wasteful of a client's money.

OUR system of fees! Solicitors are paid on an hourly basis for court work.

Maximilian · 21-11-2008 11:25am

Jo King wrote: »

OUR system of fees! Solicitors are paid on an hourly basis for court work.

Says who? My firm for example doesn't charge by the hour. I think you will find only the bigger firms do that.

maidhc · 21-11-2008 1:07pm

dats_right wrote: »

Also on a practical level:
i) I wouldn't have thought that m'lud, sorry Judge as they are now called wouldn't be too enamoured by mr solicitor appearing before him, given that said Judge was in all likelihood previously a practising barrister himself/herself.

This is changing.

dats_right wrote: »

Not only this, but us solicitors have long suspected that often when we arrive on the morning of a trial, unbeknownst to litigants and their solicitors, counsel for the respective sides have already had a casual little chat and have more or less agreed a settlement, so on the morning of the trial their respective efforts look heroic and a settlement is somehow reached from nowhere. Such casual, yet important, chats between barristers would be very much more difficult if solicitors had to be involved.

And solictors can have casual chats with other solictors...

dats_right wrote: »

ii) It would also be very difficult for a solicitor to combine running a busy law firm and all that entails with being in the Four Courts all morning hopping from court to court on various pre-trail motions, trials, settlement talks, etc, etc Something would have to give and the solicitor is unlikely to have the time to really keep his advocacy skills sharp.

They way things are is not how things should be done. I know at times it takes until clients get inside the courthouse before minds are focussed, but properly case managed cases generally get settled long before the date for trial.

In Oz, you get the date for trial when the matter is first mentioned. It tends to be 12 months into the future, and generally come hell or high water than is the date the case will go ahead. The current system promotes inefficiency.

dats_right wrote: »

Also the training that trainee solicitors receive in advocacy is bordering on the farcial, sure on my recent excursion to become learned in the practice of law at Blackhall Place there was significantly more time devoted to spirituality and meditation than advocacy!

The lack of training in advocacy in blackhall is both intentional and blatant IMO.

dats_right wrote: »

Such structures have served us well now for centuries and there is no compelling arguments to fundamentally change them. I would say that I have enormous respect for our colleagues at the Bar and highly value their professionalism, expertise and capabilities. I am ceratinly loath to bash them for the sake of it.

The division only exists in a handful of countries in the world. I'm not bashing them for the sake of it, I just don't think barristers offer value for money.

On the continent much more value is placed on lawyers who are truly specialised, and i think this is the way to go.

dats_right · 21-11-2008 2:20pm

maidhc wrote: »

This is changing.

Not really, as far as I know there are only 2 out of 38 High Court and no Supreme Court Judges that were plucked directly from the ranks of the solicitors profession, viz. Peart and Sheahan JJ, although McMahon J was previously a solicitor/academic but served quite a significant amount of time on the Circuit Court bench before his elevation. There may well be others who were solicitors and transferred to the Bar, such as Finnegan J sitting on the Supreme Court Bench, who was a solicitor for a decade or more before making the switch to the Bar but the overwhelming majority where prior to appointment practising barristers and I thus stand by my original point.

maidhc wrote: »

And solictors can have casual chats with other solictors...

Of course they can, but not usually in the same subtle, informal manner as having a quick chat at the Library, or in the canteen, or whilst having a smoke in the judge's carpark. Given the logistics of the way solicitors practice it would invariably mean organising a formal settlement meeting or picking up the phone to your colleague both of which are already very common and not really the sort of thing I was referring i.e. the more gentle and informal chats that barristers engage pre-formal settlement negotaitions.

maidhc wrote: »

They way things are is not how things should be done. I know at times it takes until clients get inside the courthouse before minds are focussed, but properly case managed cases generally get settled long before the date for trial.

In an ideal world you might have a point, and I would agree that certain efficiencies and improvements could be made, but litigation is very a complicated beast. Motives for going to Court aren't always what they seem and sometimes matters are very complicated and can't, nor should be rushed through the system. Overall and on balance the current system works rather well.

maidhc wrote: »

In Oz, you get the date for trial when the matter is first mentioned. It tends to be 12 months into the future, and generally come hell or high water than is the date the case will go ahead. The current system promotes inefficiency.

Our system promotes judicially assisted ADR, and no I haven't gone mad! By this I mean that the respective parties are encouraged, as much as possible, to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution to their differences, failing which as a last resort a Judge will be forced to arbitrate. Granted it's far from perfect, but it far better than rushing cases to hearing and determination, thereby in mediation speak disempowering the parties i.e. much better to have a part in concluding your own agreement than a third party(judge) conclude one for you.

maidhc wrote: »

The lack of training in advocacy in blackhall is both intentional and blatant IMO.

Agreed.

maidhc wrote: »

The division only exists in a handful of countries in the world. I'm not bashing them for the sake of it, I just don't think barristers offer value for money.

In theory you are quite correct, but in practice it's not quite as black and white. Disregarding the civil law countries and talking now mainly of the the former British colonies where they have common law jurisdictions and fused professions; it is my understanding that whatever the particular lawyer choses to be called, that there still exists specialist court advocates and those practising traditionally solicitor type practice areas. Even in wonderful Australia (not a dig at any body on this forum, I'm just sick of constantly hearing how marvellous the place is), I doubt whether your average conveyancing and probate practitioners are going to in the afternoon dash out from the office, don the auld wig and gown and defend a murder charge before judge and jury in Central Criminal Court equivalent. The point I'm making that the lot of a so-called fused profession isn't really in practical terms different than what exists here or in the UK. As paper pushers will push paper and advocates will advocate no matter what changes are made.

Even in the US where there is only one profession that of Attorney, it is still the norm to have trial attorneys and say property attorneys neither would ever criss cross. Also, I understand it that at trial, the top trial attorneys (our equivalent SC's) would be assisted by more junior trial attorneys (our BL's) and then there might also be more administrative attorneys dealing with the briefs, evidence, etc (our solicitors). So no matter what gloss we try put on things and names we chose to use the bottom line is that the same roles need to be fulfilled and that isn't going to change.

maidhc wrote: »

On the continent much more value is placed on lawyers who are truly specialised, and i think this is the way to go.

I don't know which continent you are referring, but I would nonetheless generally agree with the point that specialisation is the way forward. But, I don't think you've split the atom or made any equally important discovery there, as I think that it is oft heard and it is well felt feeling throughtout the profession.

johnnyskeleton · 21-11-2008 7:46pm

dats_right wrote: »

Didn't the Houe of Lords recently abolish the advocate's immunity in English Law in the case of Hall -v- Simmons [2000] All ER 673?

HoL not binding on Irish courts, hence I said that this is still the law in Ireland. Notwithstanding that however, Hall v Simmons refers to negligent advice, and immunity in respect of how a case is actually run in court (as opposed to prepared) is not affected by that decision.

Also on a practical level:
i) I wouldn't have thought that m'lud, sorry Judge as they are now called wouldn't be too enamoured by mr solicitor appearing before him, given that said Judge was in all likelihood previously a practising barrister himself/herself. So the exercise would probably be counter productive, only serving to massage the ego of said solicitor and could result in not necessarily getting the best outcome for your client.

Judges Peart and Sheahan are notorious for this. Also, Irish judges were never called m'lud, except in caricature.

The rest of what you said, I don't think it has been directed at me, so I'll leave it.

johnnyskeleton · 21-11-2008 7:50pm

Jo King wrote: »

There are motions and adjournments but not because somebody has been sitting on a file for six months! In the commercial court if you are given a week to do something you had better have it done within seven days. Cases are only listed when it is certain they are going ahead. There is little or no waste of judges time. If a case ends early the judge can do other work, such as hearing an injunction application or write a judgement. In personal injury cases 10 cases are listed and some will be adjourned on consent and some will be heard depending on the availability of courtrooms and judges. Some will be left sitting around wondering if they will be heard for days only to be put back to the next law term.

Not all commercial cases are listed when it is certain that it is going ahead. The trial date is a way of focusing the minds of the parties.

Re: PI cases, the sitting around only seems bad from the client's point of view (especially if they perceive the solicitor as trying to rack up costs), while the clients wait the lawyers will try to settle the case.

johnnyskeleton · 21-11-2008 7:53pm

Jo King wrote: »

OUR system of fees! Solicitors are paid on an hourly basis for court work.

They often get global instruction fees, but I take your point that the more time spent on a case the more they charge. But at the same time, there are unofficial scales of costs for typical district, circuit and high court cases, so the fact that a solicitor spends 500 hours on a case that runs for 1 day will not necessarily provide 5x more fees than one that a solicitor spends 100 hours on and runs for the same amount of time.

johnnyskeleton · 21-11-2008 7:55pm

maidhc wrote: »

The lack of training in advocacy in blackhall is both intentional and blatant IMO.

The only real training in advocacy is practice

johnnyskeleton · 21-11-2008 8:04pm

dats_right wrote: »

Even in the US where there is only one profession that of Attorney, it is still the norm to have trial attorneys and say property attorneys neither would ever criss cross. Also, I understand it that at trial, the top trial attorneys (our equivalent SC's) would be assisted by more junior trial attorneys (our BL's) and then there might also be more administrative attorneys dealing with the briefs, evidence, etc (our solicitors). So no matter what gloss we try put on things and names we chose to use the bottom line is that the same roles need to be fulfilled and that isn't going to change.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree with you on this. The more complicated a case, the more lawyers are involved. So in the really big commercial cases you will have 2 or 3 silks, a number of juniors (mostly doing dogsbody work) and several solicitors and support staff. All of whom are necessary to make sure that the case runs smoothly. When you are fighting over millions of euro it is not the time to say "Why can't I have just one lawyer, like those Frenchies?"

maidhc · 22-11-2008 1:02pm

dats_right wrote: »

I don't know which continent you are referring, but I would nonetheless generally agree with the point that specialisation is the way forward. But, I don't think you've split the atom or made any equally important discovery there, as I think that it is oft heard and it is well felt feeling throughtout the profession.

In the civil law countries it is not unusual for a practicing lawyer to have a phd and specialise in a particular area.

Of course on big cases, and in the high court specialist personnel are required, I'm just not convinced barristers are the right people, or if the seperation in the profession makes any sense. It strikes me that it would make a lot more sense for lawyer to be a "solicitor", and let people specialise thereafter as they see fit. Let everyone be directly insructed.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The only real training in advocacy is practice

Agreed. But wouldn't it make sense to run moot courts and so forth.

johnnyskeleton · 22-11-2008 1:30pm

maidhc wrote: »

Of course on big cases, and in the high court specialist personnel are required, I'm just not convinced barristers are the right people, or if the seperation in the profession makes any sense. It strikes me that it would make a lot more sense for lawyer to be a "solicitor", and let people specialise thereafter as they see fit. Let everyone be directly insructed.

You do know that barristers are people too (or at least, they are as human as any lawyer can be), and if we had a unified profession, the people who would have become barristers would become specialised advocates. But there would be a number of disadvantages:
1) only Dublin and Cork would have sufficient specialty work to sustain them in many areas, and people would have to travel up to 200 miles to see their lawyer if this was the case
2) I am not sure it would cost any less - in fact I think it would cost more as a few firms could corner the market whereas barristers are required to be independent of each other. Therefore, if there were 20 experts on intellectual property, our system might divide this as 15 barristers and 5 solicitors (for the sake of argument all working in the same Dublin firm) but a unified profession might have 20 lawyers- 10 in one firm and 10 in the other (or even 19 in one firm and 1 in the other). These 2 firms could charge mega bucks because they know they are the only two available. What happens when joe blogs is suing or being sued by a large international company - he is seriously disadvantaged in who represents him and must seek out someone who is not specialised in IP. But under our system, even if the international company gets the best expert, the underdog can get the second best.
3) Most people know little or nothing about the legal profession and wouldn't know who specialises in what. Many wouldn't even know if their problem was a commercial law matter or a simple contract matter. It is a good thing that they know they can go to any solicitor with any problem and if the problem requires specialist knowledge the solicitor will pick an appropriate barrister. Under a unified profession this would only work in the really big cities e.g. London, New York etc. This is similar to someone going to their GP and if the problem is unusual or requires major surgery they can be referred to a consultant.
4) It would be great if there was a steady flow of work to every lawyer. Every monday someone comes in with a personal injury claim. On tuesdays the papers arrive for a conveyance. Wednesday is local district court day, and thursday and friday are when all high court cases are listed. Unfortunately it doesn't work like this. The split profession allows solicitors to retain barristers when they are very busy rather than hand the work over to a competitor. Likewise, barristers are only paid when they work, and they only work when they are needed. Under a unified profession, solicitors would have to give up work when they are too busy and they are not guaranteed to get this back during quiet times.
5) Many people overestimate or underestimate the seriousness of their case. Under a unified profession some people would go to the equivalent of the top criminal senior counsel for a speeding offence, while others might think that a €100k land law claim was too small for a land law expert to deal with. Under the present system, most solicitors will take most work and will advise whether junior or senior counsel would be appropriate.

Ultimately, and forgive me if I take a liberty, it seems to me that you have had some very bad experiences with some individual barristers, rather than you having an intellectual problem with the split profession.

maidhc wrote: »

Agreed. But wouldn't it make sense to run moot courts and so forth.

I suppose so, but if anything these could lead to a false sense of security as the students think "oh advocacy is easy, and I'm really good at it" until they come face to face with some district court judges. Actually, coming back to an earlier point about solicitors being treated badly in the High Court, the vast majority of judges mistreating lawyers happens in the district court, and most district judges were solicitors.

nuac · 22-11-2008 8:55pm

As a solicitor I agree with Johnny Skeletons post. I have in my time conducted Circuit Court actions and even one High Court Action in an area in which I had some expertise ( the HC outing was due to an unexpected listing, and not intentional ). Never had any difficulty with any judge, although as most CC and HC judges are barristers they would prefer to see barristers being employed.

A unified profession would become polarised - the specialists would be headhunted by the larger firms, who respond to corporate demand.

The present system works well. For example some years ago I had a sudden urgent problem in the company law area. A HC application had to be made immediately to save a company. I had no experience of such an application. I contacted an SC with expertise in the area and had the necessary precedent affidavits and agenda and proofs by return email. The application was successful, company saved.

If there wasn't an independent bar I would have to refer the case to one of the major commercial firms. They might not have taken it on as they would have known nothing about the client, and even then due to time constraints and distance from Dublin there would have been problems.

The Law Library is a competitive market place - solicitors will only recommmend to their clients barristers who can do the job. This is to the clients' benefit.

johnnyskeleton · 23-11-2008 12:10am

nuac wrote: »

solicitors will only recommmend to their clients barristers who can do the job. This is to the clients' benefit.

I hope this includes giving the more straightforward work to younger members of the bar to give them a leg up. This is ultimately also to clients' benefit.

maidhc · 23-11-2008 12:43am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ultimately, and forgive me if I take a liberty, it seems to me that you have had some very bad experiences with some individual barristers, rather than you having an intellectual problem with the split profession.

Your points are valid, and you may well be right. I have been very dissappointed with some performances, and feel had I the authority from my superiors i would have done a much better job!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually, coming back to an earlier point about solicitors being treated badly in the High Court, the vast majority of judges mistreating lawyers happens in the district court, and most district judges were solicitors.

I have got abuse in the DC, but generally it is well deserved! If I was a DC judge I'd say I would be pretty annoyed with running Kindergarden for solicitors on a Monday morning getting though the applications.

Johnny Utah · 26-11-2008 3:59pm

Was anyone else listening to the Joe Duffy radio show today?

I only caught the last 10 mins of the programme, but they were talking about the economic downturn affecting solicitors. There was a lady solicitor (who had her own practice) on the programme, and I have to say I agree with everything she said. She raised the issue of fixed price conveyancing- I think she said that she had to drop her conveyancing rate just to survive in the Dublin area, and was still struggling. A few members of the public rang in, very unsympathetic, and claimed that they were recently charged up to 6k (or 3%) in conveyancing fees for a moderate-sized property. She replied that solicitors never charged 3% on conveyancing.

Another gobshyte rang in, saying he was quoted 60k for the administration of his mother's will, yet he was able to do it himself for 500euro:rolleyes:.

Anyway, at the end of the programme, Joe asked the solicitor; did she think she would survive, and she answered- probably not.

Anyone else hear the full programme?

TheDemiurge · 26-11-2008 4:21pm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Was anyone else listening to the Joe Duffy radio show today?

I only caught the last 10 mins of the programme, but they were talking about the economic downturn affecting solicitors. There was a lady solicitor (who had her own practice) on the programme, and I have to say I agree with everything she said. She raised the issue of fixed price conveyancing- I think she said that she had to drop her conveyancing rate just to survive in the Dublin area, and was still struggling. A few members of the public rang in, very unsympathetic, and claimed that they were recently charged up to 6k (or 3%) in conveyancing fees for a moderate-sized property. She replied that solicitors never charged 3% on conveyancing.

Another gobsyte rang in, saying he was quoted 60k for the administration of his mother's will, yet he was able to do it himself for 500euro:rolleyes:.

Anyway, at the end of the programme, Joe asked the solicitor; did she think she would survive, and she answered- probably not.

Anyone else hear the full programme?

I heard the beginning of the programme; she was talking about not being able to get insurance cover which is happening to a lot of sole practitioners.

She got savaged by total morons which ironically proved her point about how hard it is these days.

underflowers · 26-11-2008 10:55pm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Was anyone else listening to the Joe Duffy radio show today?

I only caught the last 10 mins of the programme, but they were talking about the economic downturn affecting solicitors. There was a lady solicitor (who had her own practice) on the programme, and I have to say I agree with everything she said. She raised the issue of fixed price conveyancing- I think she said that she had to drop her conveyancing rate just to survive in the Dublin area, and was still struggling. A few members of the public rang in, very unsympathetic, and claimed that they were recently charged up to 6k (or 3%) in conveyancing fees for a moderate-sized property. She replied that solicitors never charged 3% on conveyancing.

Another gobshyte rang in, saying he was quoted 60k for the administration of his mother's will, yet he was able to do it himself for 500euro:rolleyes:.

Anyway, at the end of the programme, Joe asked the solicitor; did she think she would survive, and she answered- probably not.

Anyone else hear the full programme?

Heard that alright, don't think she did herself any favours when she didn't really believe/take seriously the fact that people were charged those amounts by their solicitors. Was listening to it with a friend who said she had dealt with three different solicitors on three seperate occasions and was always charged a percentage as opposed to a fixed fee. Nobody's disputing the fact that solicitors do a very good job but the public generally believe it's very/too expensive. Having said that, I do have a lot of sympathy for solicitors out there at the moment who are going through some very tough times.

The discussion might be continued tomorrow with more solicitors giving their views hopefully

BanzaiBk · 27-11-2008 12:27am

Reading this thread is depressing.

guerito · 27-11-2008 12:37am

So is getting my third PFO in three years from a certain top 5 firm.

Fine, I didn't want to join your stupid crappy club for jerks anyway....

Wishbone Ash · 27-11-2008 12:38am

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Another gobshyte rang in, saying he was quoted 60k for the administration of his mother's will, yet he was able to do it himself for 500euro:rolleyes:

You must have been listening to a different Liveline! He said €6k not €60k.

underflowers wrote: »

don't think she did herself any favours when she didn't really believe/take seriously the fact that people were charged those amounts by their solicitors

She came across as totally and utterly arrogant and did a total disservice to her profession. Whatever sympathy people may have had prior to her interview was lost afterwards. Why would their representative organisation allow a 'loose cannon' like that to go on air?

underflowers wrote:

The discussion might be continued tomorrow with more solicitors giving their views hopefully

The horse has bolted!

Johnny Utah · 27-11-2008 1:07am

Aw crap, I typed up a big, long reply and lost it when I tried to submit it. :mad:

Anyway, I listened to it again on the RTE website. The relevant part starts at about 46 mins in....

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-liveline.smil

underflowers wrote: »

Heard that alright, don't think she did herself any favours when she didn't really believe/take seriously the fact that people were charged those amounts by their solicitors. Was listening to it with a friend who said she had dealt with three different solicitors on three seperate occasions and was always charged a percentage as opposed to a fixed fee. Nobody's disputing the fact that solicitors do a very good job but the public generally believe it's very/too expensive. Having said that, I do have a lot of sympathy for solicitors out there at the moment who are going through some very tough times.

The discussion might be continued tomorrow with more solicitors giving their views hopefully

Underflowers: I had a long reply which went through the radio show in detail, but unfortunately I lost it.

Tbh, I agree with the solicitor on the show- she made some very valid points. I don't blame her for not taking some of the callers seriously. Some callers were quoting figures which clearly were not accurate, others claimed that they couldn't find a solicitor who offered fixed fee conveyancing- this is simply not true, or else they're not looking very hard. And other callers just resorted to non-sensical ranting :rolleyes:

(If I get a chance, I'll try to reconstruct most of my earler post from memory.)

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You must have been listening to a different Liveline! He said €6k not €60k.!

Yes, sorry that was a typo on my part. It would be a fair difference if he could do a 60k probate for under 500 quid.:eek:

Snapper1 · 27-11-2008 1:19am

It's here for anyone who wants a listen http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

"Listen to latest show"
Starts around 46.25

elgransenor · 27-11-2008 7:12am

I heard the entire piece and unfortunately have to say that she did the profession a disservice.
She came across as arrogant and pathetic........as she said herself she set up 2 years ago as a sole practitioner and things were good to begin with but now that we are in the midst of a recession things are not so good and can't afford her insurance and rings Joe Duffy!
Her inability to counter the reasonable arguments of the callers reflected poorly on her and then she accuses a caller of making sexist comments because he said he was glad he didn't use her because of her 'disposition' .....lol.
There are many small businesses struggling all over the country now which is inevitable in a recession.
They all have similar difficulties with meeting overheads.
The legal profession is no different and wittering on about the Boland regulations and harking back to the days of fixed percentage fees for conveyancing is retrograde and unjustifiable.
A solicitor is not just a legal professional but also in many cases a small business person and if somebody uses the tactic of loss leading with a low fee conveyance to get clients in the door and hopefully generate more profitable business down the road in the relationship..............thats their call.
Its a decision that most small businesses make at some point to build their business.
Perhaps that caller should do the same thing rather than ringing Joe Duffy to complain that she can't afford her insurance and that other solicitors are not playing fair.
Get over it.

TheDemiurge · 27-11-2008 4:59pm

elgransenor wrote: »

I heard the entire piece and unfortunately have to say that she did the profession a disservice.
She came across as arrogant and pathetic........as she said herself she set up 2 years ago as a sole practitioner and things were good to begin with but now that we are in the midst of a recession things are not so good and can't afford her insurance and rings Joe Duffy!
Her inability to counter the reasonable arguments of the callers reflected poorly on her and then she accuses a caller of making sexist comments because he said he was glad he didn't use her because of her 'disposition' .....lol.
There are many small businesses struggling all over the country now which is inevitable in a recession.
They all have similar difficulties with meeting overheads.
The legal profession is no different and wittering on about the Boland regulations and harking back to the days of fixed percentage fees for conveyancing is retrograde and unjustifiable.
A solicitor is not just a legal professional but also in many cases a small business person and if somebody uses the tactic of loss leading with a low fee conveyance to get clients in the door and hopefully generate more profitable business down the road in the relationship..............thats their call.
Its a decision that most small businesses make at some point to build their business.
Perhaps that caller should do the same thing rather than ringing Joe Duffy to complain that she can't afford her insurance and that other solicitors are not playing fair.
Get over it.

Elgransenor - the point which she didn't make as well as she could have, was that her clients will be prejudiced if she can't meet the insurance payment in the current climate. Her clients will have to take their files elsewhere. Why should practising solicitors foot the insurance bill for Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne anyway? It's inequitable.

You have to ask yourself, irrespective of that solicitor, why aren't the insurance companies willing to insure conveyancers at the moment? Go figure.

looking4advice · 27-11-2008 5:11pm

What she was saying was correct (most Solicitors do not work off of a %) but she articulated it badly and she didnt defend herself well against the anti-solicitor brigade.

I never hear much people give out about Estate Agent fees and the "work" that they do to achieve sales etc. Unfortunately there are Solicitors out there who just are not good at their job and the rest of us have to suffer. There is a massive onus on Solicitors (handling clients money being the main one) and some should not have that responsiblity.

Maybe if the Law Society didnt let in so many people into the Law School, there might not be such a race to the bottom with fees and the like.

1% for a conveyance would be a reasonable price buy I cannot ever see that come back.

TheDemiurge · 27-11-2008 5:16pm

looking4advice wrote: »

What she was saying was correct (most Solicitors do not work off of a %) but she articulated it badly and she didnt defend herself well against the anti-solicitor brigade.

I never hear much people give out about Estate Agent fees and the "work" that they do to achieve sales etc. Unfortunately there are Solicitors out there who just are not good at their job and the rest of us have to suffer. There is a massive onus on Solicitors (handling clients money being the main one) and some should not have that responsiblity.

Maybe if the Law Society didnt let in so many people into the Law School, there might not be such a race to the bottom with fees and the like.

1% for a conveyance would be a reasonable price buy I cannot ever see that come back.

Any solicitor going on a radio or TV show is going to get savaged - that's why no one usually does, not even the Law Society.

Insurance companies obviously now think that conveyancers are a poor risk, and my own broker told me as well that the root of this is from fixed fee conveyancers and legal secretaries and apprentices doing the work. There's a huge number of claims being made now, and I bet many punters who paid peanuts regret the hassle they now have in sorting the matter out.

I've just listened to the full broadcast. She was right to diss that idiot who said he paid 6,500 Euro for a conveyance on a 250,000 Euro house. There were either serious title issues or else he's assuming that stamp duty and reg fees form part of the solicitor's fee.

The Law Society can't stop the numbers entering as that would be contrary to competition law.

partyguinness · 27-11-2008 5:22pm

I am a solicitor and I heard about the Joe Duffy Show yesterday. What was she thinking going on that show>>>>>:(:( Was she expecting sympathy???

Lets be honest most people who listen to that show are very angry and leisurely who are never happy with anything or anyone sitting around on their arses bitching.

Unemployed Solicitors ?

Comments