Reform of the Legal Services Sector

blueythebear

Just heard a piece on Newstalk morning show and to say it's ill informed is an understatement. THey were talking obviously about the reforms of the legal sector and predictably enough, they began with the wigs and gowns issue...It just got worse after that.

The speaker on this was the business editor, Ian Geiger (or something like that) and he mentioned the JC/SC rule but said that where there was an SC the JC just sits in court and does nothing but gets two thirds the fee of the SC. He then went on to say that solicitors had no right to advocate on your behalf ! It was topped off with "Why are solicitors not allowd to advertise?" As far as I knew, solicitors can advertise (although the form of advertisement and location are restricted as per the Solicitors (Advertising) Regulations ).

In fairness to newstalk, after the break they spoke with Paul Anthony McDermott and with Barry Lyons solicitor from Lyons Kenny. Ivan Yates really went for them though and wasn't listening to the points made by either.

It seems that this whole reform of the legal sector issue is clearly going to be a field day for the media to beat the legal sector with and no real competition issues will be properly discussed or at least, anything discussed will not involve facts.

So the question is, who comes up with the reforms? Is it the Government who will inevitably listen to the c**p above from the media or is it based on requirements specifically from the IMF?

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote: »

This thread has turned into a debate on how junior barrister can earn a living income. The approach is wrong. It has to be approached from the point of view of a litigant. An litigant who loses a case can end up getting an enormous bill for a couple of days in the High Court. There are case of people getting bills for 250K over a case lasting 2 days. It is a fat lot of good saying to that person that some junior barristers are living on 50 euro a week and there are 1000 unemployed solicitors. So far as I can see, apart from suggestions about case management and automation the profession has not offered any useful solution to the question of legal costs.

Well no, the general thread has been about the proposed reforms and how people seem to want to hurt the legal profession rather than actually increase competition.

I would argue that new entrants to the market is a very important part of creating competition. This was the Competition Authority's original and main point and they have managed to increase the overall numbers entering both professions. But they have not had any follow through i.e. what happens to the newly qualified persons after they enter the market. I would be of the view that letting them stand or fall based on market forces is the only really pro-competitive choice.

However, there is another argument that by intervening to assist the junior members of each profession (the threat has focussed on junior barristers because they were the ones who shared their experiences) it would permit those junior barristers to then go on to compete (on price, it is assumed) with other more established barristers. This would ultimately lead to reduced prices for the consumer.

But again, that would be the type of move by someone who actually wanted to increase competition. Everyone, it seems, just wants to give the legal professions a good kicking.

Jo King wrote: »

Setting up chambers will not reduce costs. Do the solicitors firms with the greatest number of solicitors charge the least? On the contrary.
Some items which are charged for are mind boggling. If a judgement is reserved, the loser ends up paying several thousand euro for two solicitors and four barristers to sit and accept the print out of judgement and make applications for costs and stays of execution etc.
The only response of the legal profession to this nonsense is to moan about poor junior barristers and the independent referral bar.

Are the fees for taking judgement that high? If so, surely something could be done on a taxation basis e.g. reducing the fees that tax for taking judgement. Perhaps, in turn, this would lead to more taking judgement briefs going to junior junior counsel instead.

johnnyskeleton

Avatargh wrote: »

I can't see any reason why I'd be against this at all, but am unsure that anyone is really thinking it through.

Well then it seems to me that the Bar Council and Law Society should start shouting from the roof tops that they are vehemently opposed to per hour billing above all other reforms. That, more than anything, should guarantee it comes in.

Avatargh wrote: »

At the upper end, certainly, one may see savings when moving from a brief to time-spent/worked but it will be curious to see how costs reforms can really do anything about the bare fact that low to middle value cases can involve just as much work as the highest value cases (and sometimes more).

Arguably even there you wouldn't. For example, take the tribunals, which are (in the public consciousness at least) the most extreme example of overpaid lawyers. No one, they say, should earn €2,250 per day and it is extortionate. When you put it another way, earning €11,250 per week seems outrageous, especially when judged (as you point out) on the basis of hours in court rather than hours actually worked).

However, these are top senior counsel and probably working very long hours. Assuming a 40 hour week, €11,250 would work out at €281.25, which is a lot compared to the minimum wage but is not all that much as professional fees go. A more likely scenario is that they would work 50-60 hours a week, and charge €450 per hour. Thus, their weekly fees would work out at c. €27,000.

The impression I get, and I might be wrong, is that there are only a few examples of global fees that would work out less than per hour fees. Most of these would be the well aired cases where lawyers have been found to have overcharged. Other examples might be where a barrister is given a case at the last minute and therefore earns a few thousand euro for perhaps an hour or two's work. But even in the latter scenario, there is likely to have been another barrister doing a lot of the hard preparation work for which, under the current system, they don't get paid.

Or another thing, what about where a solicitor has, say, 3 cases in court with 3 different sets of barristers. Lets say these cases are in court for 4 hours. Can the solicitor bill for 4 hours on each of the cases, i.e. get paid 12 hours for their 4 hours in court? If not, how do they calculate the hourly rate?

Avatargh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Assuming a 40 hour week, €11,250 would work out at €281.25, which is a lot compared to the minimum wage but is not all that much as professional fees go.

Which is something people just don't want to hear.

No-one wants to hear that their €10,000.00 value case took rather a lot of work. No-one seems to want to know that on the other side there are usually another set of professionals whose entire job is to pick holes in your case which you have to be ready for.

Jo King

Jo King wrote: »

This thread has turned into a debate on how junior barrister can earn a living income. The approach is wrong. It has to be approached from the point of view of a litigant. An litigant who loses a case can end up getting an enormous bill for a couple of days in the High Court. There are case of people getting bills for 250K over a case lasting 2 days. It is a fat lot of good saying to that person that some junior barristers are living on 50 euro a week and there are 1000 unemployed solicitors. So far as I can see, apart from suggestions about case management and automation the profession has not offered any useful solution to the question of legal costs.
Setting up chambers will not reduce costs. Do the solicitors firms with the greatest number of solicitors charge the least? On the contrary.
Some items which are charged for are mind boggling. If a judgement is reserved, the loser ends up paying several thousand euro for two solicitors and four barristers to sit and accept the print out of judgement and make applications for costs and stays of execution etc.
The only response of the legal profession to this nonsense is to moan about poor junior barristers and the independent referral bar.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here but with reference to the highlighted part I think you are a little off the mark.

A 2 day case in the High Court is not simply 2 days work. It could quite easily be 18 months to 2 years work. Dozens of hours of drafting, twice as long researching the areas, consultations, a half dozen motions and adjournments and all that before the case ever gets on. People get annoyed because they get a big fee for two days in the High Court when, in reality, it is far far more than that.

Kosseegan

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here but with reference to the highlighted part I think you are a little off the mark.

A 2 day case in the High Court is not simply 2 days work. It could quite easily be 18 months to 2 years work. Dozens of hours of drafting, twice as long researching the areas, consultations, a half dozen motions and adjournments and all that before the case ever gets on. People get annoyed because they get a big fee for two days in the High Court when, in reality, it is far far more than that.

It is still a ridiculous amount of money for what is likely to have been a run of the mill case. The answer of the legal profession is that they say they are working hard for (in some cases) small money. What have they suggested can be done about it?

Kosseegan

Kosseegan wrote: »

It is still a ridiculous amount of money for what is likely to have been a run of the mill case. The answer of the legal profession is that they say they are working hard for (in some cases) small money. What have they suggested can be done about it?

Assuming the fee was €250k that is a legal costs bill for 2 sets of legal teams as the losing party carries the costs for both. Obviously that's assuming the case was not no foal-no fee.

Also, considering this is all a hypothetical, what are you basing the idea that it was run of the mill on? I have seen plenty of 2 day cases that were incredibly complex and required hundreds of man hours in preparation beforehand, let alone the attendant fees for the motions etc.

250k might be a bargain for some 2 day cases and an absolute rip off for others, there's no point getting into it with a complete hypothetical regardless.

My essential point remains though; Fees for 2 days in the High Court are not fees for 2 days work.

johnnyskeleton

Kosseegan wrote: »

It is still a ridiculous amount of money for what is likely to have been a run of the mill case. The answer of the legal profession is that they say they are working hard for (in some cases) small money. What have they suggested can be done about it?

I suppose this leads to the nub of the argument - what is a ridiculous amount of money for professional services, and what is a reasonable amount?

Honestly, what should a person pay, per hour or per case, for a professional service like legal services?

Let's say you are of the view that they should be paid €50 per hour. Or €250. Or €5 per hour. If you are the one looking for a legal service to be provided, you can shop around and see what lawyers would be prepared to do it at your rate. You might find some solicitors who have very little work or perhaps (if direct access comes in) some of the underemployed barristers dealt with above.

It is your choice, as a consumer to try to get someone to do the work at a price you will pay and, if you can't find someone who will do the work for that price, you can either increase your bid or not engage a lawyer at all. That is the free market.

At the end of the day, if someone provides a service they can set their own price. If it is too high, people won't pay it.

Het-Field

Kosseegan wrote: »

It is still a ridiculous amount of money for what is likely to have been a run of the mill case. The answer of the legal profession is that they say they are working hard for (in some cases) small money. What have they suggested can be done about it?

The question is, what is a "run of the mill case". The reality is, no two clients, set of facts, or case requirements are likely to be the same. I dont believe it is really possible for the costs of a case to be ascertained at first instance, as new matters may arise over the course of the case's progression. Kayroo has articulated the various steps that a case may take before it comes on for trial. Such steps will cost money, as they are a procedure onto themselves, and often require much attention, and diversion of attention from other matters.

nuac

I agree with Hatfield. Two days in the High Court is rarely "run of the mill". Thorough preparation needed by counsel and solicitors. Only the tip of the iceberg appears in court.

32minutes

This thread seems to be waning but I have a question more so than a comment.

If the government is seeking to get rid of the necessity for having a JC and an SC for certain cases on the basis that it would reduce costs for the consumer (as the primary goal); why not get rid of the distinction between SC and JC altogether ?

When a consumer/solicitor is going to choose a barrister this would reduce the distinction of whether they required an SC (who would have to undertake more gruntwork than normal and possibly charge more for this) and a JC (who may not have as much experience in leading a case or may have less chance of getting retained for the case as they are seen as arbitrarily inferior).

Of course this would take a long time to see a return on as the distinction would remain in reality until at least a completely new generation of barristers plus it may have a detrimental effect on current barristers who have made their name and put a lot of effort into becoming highly regarded as an SC (or even as a JC). This could do more to level the playing field between barristers and make the system more transparent for the consumer. Not sure if there would be huge consumer savings in it though so I was wondering what people think of this ?

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

This thread seems to be waning but I have a question more so than a comment.

If the government is seeking to get rid of the necessity for having a JC and an SC for certain cases on the basis that it would reduce costs for the consumer (as the primary goal); why not get rid of the distinction between SC and JC altogether ?

When a consumer/solicitor is going to choose a barrister this would reduce the distinction of whether they required an SC (who would have to undertake more gruntwork than normal and possibly charge more for this) and a JC (who may not have as much experience in leading a case or may have less chance of getting retained for the case as they are seen as arbitrarily inferior).

Of course this would take a long time to see a return on as the distinction would remain in reality until at least a completely new generation of barristers plus it may have a detrimental effect on current barristers who have made their name and put a lot of effort into becoming highly regarded as an SC (or even as a JC). This could do more to level the playing field between barristers and make the system more transparent for the consumer. Not sure if there would be huge consumer savings in it though so I was wondering what people think of this ?

Yup. Presumably junior counsel will do all the pre trial stuff and then senior counsel will take the eventual hearing fee. However, it seems to me that without the separation of roles of senior and junior counsel, any patent of precedence will be anti competitive. If you think about it, as matters stand it is a government controlled system which allows barristers carry out a different role, one which has an element of respect to it. If the role of seniorcounsel as leading counsel is removed, we will have a system whereby the government can arbitrarily select certain lawyers to be marked out as more prestigous and they would effectively be themselves interfering in the market.

Milk & Honey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I suppose it all boils down to fees. The public perception being that all lawyers make millions, the reality being that very few are making an appropriate wage in general (some too much; most far too little).

I don't think it's going to work if we beat around the bush with any new legislation. If there is a desire to "reform" the legal system, then we need to be more honest about it. There is no transparency at the moment though, so it's just vague concepts being bandied about that will have little to no actual impact on the "system" or any positive impact on fees structure (or any other significant aspect of the field).
Fees and wages are a cornerstone of reform, it should start there. How do we guarantee that young professionals get a living wage and that a few well connected individuals aren't running a profession where they control the market.

I guess in a way the problem is that people are fixated on a "reality" that isn't real... the millions just don't exist for 90%+ of either profession, although I think it's often overlooked that young solicitors are at least making some money.

I will say it again - you can make an income in your first few years - if you get one JR, one trial on indictment or one junior brief in the HC/SC, you will make more money than your fees and your other practise expenses. You won't make much but it is an income, however inferior it may seem to you.

FreudianSlippers

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I will say it again - you can make an income in your first few years - if you get one JR, one trial on indictment or one junior brief in the HC/SC, you will make more money than your fees and your other practise expenses. You won't make much but it is an income, however inferior it may seem to you.

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

nuac

Milk and Honey, I note your comment that a very junior barrister would do well if (s)he were briefed in a JR, Indictment , or junior brief in HC/SC.

As a solicitor of 40+ years experience I would be slow to brief a very junior barrister in any cases of that complexity.

The sad fact is that too many are qualifying as barristers and solicitors, and that there is not enough work there for them.

Het-Field

On the 27th October, the Irish Public will go to the polls, in order to select the ninth President of Ireland. Further, the people af Dublin West will elect a new member of An Dail Eireann, to replace Brian Lenihan Jnr (RIP).

While these elections, particularly the former, have captured the public interest, very little attention has been given to the Referenda which will be held on the same day. This lack of attention, reflects the lack of information which has been provided by the Governement in relation to the questions which will be asked.

It would appear that there will be at least two questions. The first will deal with the issue of Judicial Pay, while the second will deal with an increase in the investigative powers of Oireachtas committees.

I am interested to know whether a wording has been ascertained in relation to these questions, particularly the second, and whether there is any other potential questions which will be posed on polling day?

Milk & Honey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

Sorry about that. It was a quote from Johnny Skeleton. I meant to comment on it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53085141

32minutes

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

I would respectfully disagree with this, at the minute the push for reform might be more to do with "optics" than substantive reform but there are real issues that people would like to see solved.

Firstly legal services is perceived as being too expensive, although I think this can get tangled up with a misconception that this is due to lawyers making huge sums of money. I think the marketplace is hugely expensive to operate in and it doesn't matter how many solicitors the equality authority thinks that the country needs, they'll all be expensive/unemployed unless the high fixed/variable expenses within the legal sector are really addressed such as PII, court services charges, practicing certificates and cost of training. This might sound like I'm trying to reduce overheads and make lawyers more money but the fact is if you do this AND increase competition (by sorting out qualification routes) then prices for the consumer in the marketplace will come down via competition, if marketplace prices come down then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure their legal expenses come down too by more effective tendering and hard bargaining over tribunal costs.

The second main problem is that the legal process is seen as taking too long. especially in the criminal courts. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that lawyers are collectively creating this issue by dragging out cases to charge more fees then this is a more difficult problem to solve. People will never be happy with the speed of cases but it does appear that in this country, in some cases the speed is worryingly slow and people have experiences of unmotivated solicitors dragging their heels or disorganized who don't help in this area. Again I think some of the government reforms in this area are misguided. Fusing the professions, chambers, more competition won't help, or at least they definitely won't help until the courts service is seen to reform first. Much better case management systems, introduction of IT systems and an increase in the sitting terms for the lower courts especially would do much more to speed up the process than some superficial overhaul of the legal profession IMO, but then again these things cost money.

The gown/wig debate is obviously a cheap piece to score political/media points so I don't really have an opinion on that.

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

I genuinely believe that a lot people are beginning to understand that not everyone in the legal profession is a tribunal SC coining it or a millionaire solicitor so if they try to make real reforms and explain their actions to people I think there's a good chance that it could be good for the consumer AND the profession long term.

i would also add one short thing; the lack of competition that the equality authority speaks of is more to do with lack of solicitor practices not solicitors and as long as the current system of qualifying and very high setup costs for solicitors remains, even a huge explosion in the number of solicitors wouldn't fix this as the current system makes it very difficult for a solicitor to setup independently, I think this could also help with younger barristers as more, smaller independent solicitor offices are going to create a better market for barristers

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

This is true. If people want cheaper legal fees they can shop around until they find them. Many solicitors offer free consultations to clients and then take their cases on on a no foal no fee basis. Others charge their clients for outlay and a small professional fee of a few hunrded euro (which is very little when the amount of time and effort involved is taken into account).

Other solicitors take on legal aid or pro bono work. Despite the uproar about legal aid fees, we still have a reasonably priced system of legal aid compared to other countries.

Suffice it to say, those who can't afford to pay for private litigation generally get good value for money form lawyers.

In any event, there are broadly speaking three categories of people/bodies that end up paying for legal fees:

1) The other side who loses in litigation - they do not get to agree fees in advance and can't select the other side's choice of lawyers, so their only power against this is the taxing master. If they want fees to be reduced, it should be done at the taxing master level, but the taxing master is already assessing fees based on work done and reasonableness, so any change here would have to be costs taxed on a less than reasonable basis. This category is pissed off because they have to pay for someone else's lawyers.

2) The client who has money but doesn't win or doesn't recover costs - will have to pay their own fees out of their own pocket or else out of their award. They have the option to agree fees in advance. They can shop around for different solicitors. They can ask for a quote that is based on tasks or job lots, or they can look for an hourly rate. Either way, they are assessed of the risk at all times and are capable of making an informed choice as a consumer. This cannot be changed by legislation. This category is pissed off because they didn't get the result they were looking for.

3) Non litigation services / litigation with no chance of costs - perhaps the one that people complain about the most is *shock horror* when people actually have to pay for legal services to be done on their behalf and no one else will cover that cost. Examples such as conveyancing, family law, company/regulatory matters or defending a case against a litigant with little or no means to pay your costs. The trouble here is not so much the prices that are charged, so much as the fact that people see having to engage a lawyer at all as unfair. So they see conveyancing as a simple paper pushing exercise, and fail to see why they need representation in the family law courts etc etc. This group is pissed off because they want to be able to do it themselves or get it done without any charge.

So I suppose the unifying theme is that people are pissed off that lawyers have to be paid generally, and this manifests itself as wanting to reduce the amount of money that they get.

Ultimately though, legal services are further complicated by the fact that they are an irrational good. That is to say, demand and price for any given lawyer often travel in the same direction. High priced lawyers are often seen as inherently better than those who offer the same service at a lower rate. The perception is that a solicitor who charges €500 an hour and a senior counsel that charges a brief fee of €20,000 are obviously at the top of their game and therefore are better than solicitors that charge €150 per hour and seniors who charge brief fees of €5,000. Thus, despite the general belief that lawyers are earning too much, when any individual requires a lawyer, they will often perfer to go to someone who charges higher fees rather than someone who offers better value for money.

So we're back to square one that consumers should be the ones imposing downward pressure on fees but there is often a disincentive to offer reduced fees.

FreudianSlippers

32minutes wrote: »

I would respectfully disagree with this, at the minute the push for reform might be more to do with "optics" than substantive reform but there are real issues that people would like to see solved.

Firstly legal services is perceived as being too expensive, although I think this can get tangled up with a misconception that this is due to lawyers making huge sums of money. I think the marketplace is hugely expensive to operate in and it doesn't matter how many solicitors the equality authority thinks that the country needs, they'll all be expensive/unemployed unless the high fixed/variable expenses within the legal sector are really addressed such as PII, court services charges, practicing certificates and cost of training. This might sound like I'm trying to reduce overheads and make lawyers more money but the fact is if you do this AND increase competition (by sorting out qualification routes) then prices for the consumer in the marketplace will come down via competition, if marketplace prices come down then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure their legal expenses come down too by more effective tendering and hard bargaining over tribunal costs.

The second main problem is that the legal process is seen as taking too long. especially in the criminal courts. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that lawyers are collectively creating this issue by dragging out cases to charge more fees then this is a more difficult problem to solve. People will never be happy with the speed of cases but it does appear that in this country, in some cases the speed is worryingly slow and people have experiences of unmotivated solicitors dragging their heels or disorganized who don't help in this area. Again I think some of the government reforms in this area are misguided. Fusing the professions, chambers, more competition won't help, or at least they definitely won't help until the courts service is seen to reform first. Much better case management systems, introduction of IT systems and an increase in the sitting terms for the lower courts especially would do much more to speed up the process than some superficial overhaul of the legal profession IMO, but then again these things cost money.

The gown/wig debate is obviously a cheap piece to score political/media points so I don't really have an opinion on that.

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

I genuinely believe that a lot people are beginning to understand that not everyone in the legal profession is a tribunal SC coining it or a millionaire solicitor so if they try to make real reforms and explain their actions to people I think there's a good chance that it could be good for the consumer AND the profession long term.

i would also add one short thing; the lack of competition that the equality authority speaks of is more to do with lack of solicitor practices not solicitors and as long as the current system of qualifying and very high setup costs for solicitors remains, even a huge explosion in the number of solicitors wouldn't fix this as the current system makes it very difficult for a solicitor to setup independently, I think this could also help with younger barristers as more, smaller independent solicitor offices are going to create a better market for barristers

I would agree with you on this, my point is merely that this feels very rushed. It feels like reform for the sake of reform and lacks any substance.

The problems are systemic and this is a plaster; a plaster which will fail and/or cause more problems than it's worth.

Want reform? Work with the sector and investigate what and where the problems are for 6 months to a year and then come up with a detailed report and plan for how to fix them.

That's all I'm really saying.

Avatargh

One point that may be overlooked here a little is that - I assume - no-one is going to be interfering with what a lawyer may charge his or her client if that is agreed. Rather, the issue is with the quantum of costs which may be awarded against the losing side in litigation and the potential scaling of those costs or the potential disallowing of certain matters. Maybe I'm very wrong, but I don't see the State actually saying "this is what you are allowed charged a client" but I can see the State saying "well, in other countries you might not even get your costs, so from now on, the measure of awardable costs isn't what it used to be". Sure, we've already got precedent for this in planning cases.

Edit: Oh, wait...johnnyskeleton said all that.

dammit

johnnyskeleton

Interesting article from Carol Coulter in the Irish Times yesterday, the start of a few days worth of specials on the legal profession. She is one of the few journalists who is impartial on the legal profession, as seen by her performance on the Vincent Brown show a few weeks ago.

Flaws in the law: fixing the legal system

...
Can the proposed legal-services Bill address the structural problems in our legal system and stem the growing cynicism about it? Can it ensure we have a legal system that guarantees access to justice for all citizens, irrespective of their wealth or position in society, and ensures that society and the economy function properly?

The crisis in the legal system is real, though much of the comment on it is uninformed.

...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0917/1224304249214.html

Good to see her calling for informed debate.

Among its main recommendations were an independent legal-services commission with overall responsibility for regulating the legal profession and the market for legal services; abolition of the King’s Inns’ and the Law Society’s control of professional legal training; direct access to barristers for legal advice for members of the public; allowing barristers to form partnerships with each other and with other professionals; easier transfer between the two branches of the profession; a transparent system of setting fees for both branches of the profession; the ending of the solicitors’ lien, which prevents clients moving to another solicitor without paying the first; and the introduction of a profession of specialist conveyancers, to bring down the price and increase the quality of service in conveyancing.

She rejects the proposals in respect of the new profession of conveyancer and permitting other institutions to provide legal education as superflous at present. While they certainly seem less relevant now than they were in 2006 when the report was first published, I wonder is there any benefit to these proposals?

First of all, if people could be trained better or cheaper in other colleges then I suppose it is a good thing, irrespective of how it will not significantly impact the numbers entering the professions.

As regards conveyancers as a discrete profession, if this could permit solicitors to distance themselves from conveyancing for insurance purposes, that would be of significant benefit to litigation only type firms as it would seriously reduce their overheads.

However, many of the other proposals – transparency in the services provided and the fees charged; requiring solicitors to facilitate clients switching to another solicitor by releasing their files; allowing barristers offer advice to members of the public, form partnerships and represent employers in court; and tackling the practice of setting junior counsel’s fees at two-thirds of those of a senior (even though the Bar Council has abolished the rule) – are likely to feature in the legal-services Bill.

This appears to be shaping up as the route that will most likely be followed.

They could make the legal system more affordable and accessible. Or they could concentrate legal expertise in the hands of big firms and drive many of those who offer a service to the public out of the legal profession.

Excellent. This is a risk that the politicians and a lot of the media and commentators seem to be either oblivious to or to be deliberately obscuring. If this is done wrong, they are only going to make the legal sector less competitive and ultimately increase the cost of litigation. But I suppose they won't mind so long as lawyers get a kicking.

On the changes to the barristers profession, I don't see how the mechanics of this will operate. Will they force the Bar Council to change its ways by legislation? What if the Law Library starts to call itself a chambers with the rule that if you are a member you cannot be a member of any other chambers as well? That would solve the chambers issue. And equally, what is to stop any chambers or the law library from imposing their own rules that they can't advise clients directly. If any given lawyer decides they don't want to deal with X client or X type of client, then that is their choice, no?

bath handle

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

This is ill thought out for two reasons or, more accurately, two assumptions you make:-

(1) you assume that other institutions who may (if permitted) run competing programs would staff them with non-practitioners. Given that a new set-up would, most likely, be trying to compete with incumbents, its as reasonable to assume that another institution may hire part-time staff to delivery professional practice courses.

(2) you assume that the academic environment is staffed by academics without, I assume, a practice background. Again, that's just a rubbish assumption when some institutions have practitioner staff.

Further, just because the monopoly on education could be taken from the Law Society and the King's Inns doesn't mean that there won't be a centrally set syllabus / set of standards. Perhaps that would require, for example, modules to be delivered by practitioners for an institution to be permitted to deliver the course.

You might be right in saying "having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster", but its hardly a point worth making.

johnnyskeleton

Irrespective of the quality of the education, which is of lesser imporrtance as a lawyer gains practical experience anyway, if the cost and time out of office to become a solicitor is reduced, is this not an incentive ( less disincentive) to firms taking on apprentices.

Equally, isn't the possibility that a new barrister could start with 5k less debt a lessening of the barrier to entry created by high fees and small earnings in the first few years?

That is, assuming thr new courses are actually cheaper, a big assumption in Ireland.

Avatargh

Yes, saving money on education would assist in removal of barrier to entry, but I can't see that kind of saving based on the following assumptions.

(1) If there is a single education regulator for "lawyers" (i.e. fuse professions), then it remains you still have two physical locations in Dublin with staff and infrastructure who will want to deliver the courses. Thus, the Dublin market would be pretty much taken.

(2) The cost of entry would be quite high. Assuming that the education would be on par with the BL or PPC, one needs to pay the capital cost of material preparation as well as pay the vast array of part-time staff taken on for these things. Like, if one assumes that the KI do, in fact, run a good course and that whatever "state-set" course would be somewhat similar to it - its not something that can be laid on for cheap. Sure, one could save here and there on wages and so on, but not in any substantial sense that renders the whole enterprise significantly cheaper.

(3) After entry, the cost of competition would be high. I assume a new entrant needs to have a "gimmick" that the incumbents wouldn't have such as online lectures or something like that - again, more cost. And to compete with the "classic" institutions (LS and KI), one would need good price competition, so the new competitor is already looking at massive capital injection, ongoing high revenue outlay and having to undercut the competitor and, I assume, deliver a better quality product.

I'm in no way against this - anyone who is able to deliver whatever the professional course requires should be permitted to deliver it. I just don't really see that there is massive incentive or money there for an institution to lump in the capital investment as well as as ongoing staffing just to try and get a slice of the pie (i.e. there is no point talking about taking the market entirely from the KI and LS; at best, I'd guess, there will be a 30-40% slice available).

I imagine someone might be able to make something of a go of it in the West/Cork and cater to the market for whom Dublin may be too far to travel, but the sheer cost involved as against the not-really-great income from it would, I think, scare off a UCG/UCC or similar institution when pretty similar fees could be charged for simply starting up an LLM or similar Masters (see NUIM for example) without all the hassle of professional ed.

bath handle

Avatargh wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

This is ill thought out for two reasons or, more accurately, two assumptions you make:-

(1) you assume that other institutions who may (if permitted) run competing programs would staff them with non-practitioners. Given that a new set-up would, most likely, be trying to compete with incumbents, its as reasonable to assume that another institution may hire part-time staff to delivery professional practice courses.

(2) you assume that the academic environment is staffed by academics without, I assume, a practice background. Again, that's just a rubbish assumption when some institutions have practitioner staff.

Further, just because the monopoly on education could be taken from the Law Society and the King's Inns doesn't mean that there won't be a centrally set syllabus / set of standards. Perhaps that would require, for example, modules to be delivered by practitioners for an institution to be permitted to deliver the course.

You might be right in saying "having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster", but its hardly a point worth making.

I am not making any assumptions. A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.
Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors. As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.
The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.
At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

I am not making any assumptions.

Right...ok.

bath handle wrote: »

A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.

Assumption no.1. A "small add on".

bath handle wrote: »

Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors.

Assumption no.2. You assume that whatever rules held for full-time hires would be continued to be applied fn a practice course was started.

You assume that a university would say "oh ok, lets start a practice course, but lets stick with that policy that we don't hire practitioners" when you could assume that a university may say "well, that policy is fine for our full-time staff, but since we're branching out here, we shouldn't apply it for the practice course". You choose to assume the most irrational response that a college would have to a practice-course set up.

bath handle wrote: »

As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.

Assumption no.3. You assume that such control is intended to be part of whatever system we end up. What is the basis for assuming that the existing professional bodies would continue to have an oversight rule? Isn't that precisely what may change? If the courses are set and requirements set by a single state institution and not the current professional bodies, then any university wanting to run such a course would have to follow the single centralised methodology.

bath handle wrote: »

The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

bath handle wrote: »

At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

On what basis would there likely be a much higher failure rate? They will charge what the market will stand? Well, what is wrong what that? Isn't that the POINT here - that the market is not competitive and thus with the opening of competing educational routes, the market - with competition - should yield results? I personally don't believe that will happen for reasons outlined above, but I'm making this point here really by way of counter to some of your more nonsensical modes of reasoning.

bath handle

Avatargh wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

I am not making any assumptions.

Right...ok.

bath handle wrote: »

A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.

Assumption no.1. A "small add on".

bath handle wrote: »

Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors.

Assumption no.2. You assume that whatever rules held for full-time hires would be continued to be applied fn a practice course was started.

You assume that a university would say "oh ok, lets start a practice course, but lets stick with that policy that we don't hire practitioners" when you could assume that a university may say "well, that policy is fine for our full-time staff, but since we're branching out here, we shouldn't apply it for the practice course". You choose to assume the most irrational response that a college would have to a practice-course set up.

bath handle wrote: »

As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.

Assumption no.3. You assume that such control is intended to be part of whatever system we end up. What is the basis for assuming that the existing professional bodies would continue to have an oversight rule? Isn't that precisely what may change? If the courses are set and requirements set by a single state institution and not the current professional bodies, then any university wanting to run such a course would have to follow the single centralised methodology.

bath handle wrote: »

The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

bath handle wrote: »

At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

On what basis would there likely be a much higher failure rate? They will charge what the market will stand? Well, what is wrong what that? Isn't that the POINT here - that the market is not competitive and thus with the opening of competing educational routes, the market - with competition - should yield results? I personally don't believe that will happen for reasons outlined above, but I'm making this point here really by way of counter to some of your more nonsensical modes of reasoning.

The proposal is that the professional bodies stop teaching and take on a vetting/standards role. What state body would have the ability to decide on appropriate training for professionals?
The colleges are all short of money. Any opportunity to turn a profit be taken. It is naive to suggest there will be price war.

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

Whatever about anything elsei found this "simmering" to be one of the most important parts of blackhall. It might have been different in cork but there was just a different feel to the place compared to my time in UCC which was less than 1km away. Maybe it is an assumption but it's not exactly too wide of the mark really...

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

The proposal is that the professional bodies stop teaching and take on a vetting/standards role. What state body would have the ability to decide on appropriate training for professionals?
The colleges are all short of money. Any opportunity to turn a profit be taken. It is naive to suggest there will be price war.

Maybe then read what I said. I asked what is wrong with charging what the market stands and I also said my own view (for reasons outlined above) is that there won't be serious competition on price given entry costs.

As for the proposal "is". Fine. We'll wait and see.

Avatargh

shaneybaby wrote: »

Whatever about anything elsei found this "simmering" to be one of the most important parts of blackhall. It might have been different in cork but there was just a different feel to the place compared to my time in UCC which was less than 1km away. Maybe it is an assumption but it's not exactly too wide of the mark really...

Ok, but how would a professional course delivered in another institution be any different? You could have the same classes together with the same group of people? You could have the same tutorials grouped with the same people? There isn't much sense to a notion that the actual course delivery would be mixed with other pre-existing courses.

The only difference would be that there would be "other" people around in the sense of the general student body? Or that the particular venue such as (UCG, TCD etc) has some sort of innate problem that isn't suitable to professional education?

What essential quality of "simmering" is necessarily and inexorably lost by the delivery of a course at an alternative venue?

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Ok, but how would a professional course delivered in another institution be any different? You could have the same classes together with the same group of people? You could have the same tutorials grouped with the same people? There isn't much sense to a notion that the actual course delivery would be mixed with other pre-existing courses.

The only difference would be that there would be "other" people around in the sense of the general student body? Or that the particular venue such as (UCG, TCD etc) has some sort of innate problem that isn't suitable to professional education?

What essential quality of "simmering" is necessarily and inexorably lost by the delivery of a course at an alternative venue?

I don't know. all i'm saying is that the attitude of both staff and students in PPC1 was completely different to that of the University i attended. I spent a bit of time in the army and there were more similarities in PPC1 (in terms of atmosphere) with the cadet course than with any time i spent in University. Size of classes had nothing to do with it as all the classes were within 10 students of each other.

Avatargh

shaneybaby wrote: »

I don't know. all i'm saying is that the attitude of both staff and students in PPC1 was completely different to that of the University i attended. I spent a bit of time in the army and there were more similarities in PPC1 (in terms of atmosphere) with the cadet course than with any time i spent in University. Size of classes had nothing to do with it as all the classes were within 10 students of each other.

Granted. So, the assumption that a university venue would create issues depends on the assumption that a pro-course at a university venue would be run in the same way as an undergraduate course.

Yes, PPC1 is completely different as is the BL degree, so a university teaching them would have to react to that difference and teach the course in a manner reflective of its requirements.

Its pointless to say the atmosphere in university is different to the professional courses because when you were university you weren't doing a professional course. Of course the attitudes were different because they were different courses. The point here is that universities could be free to run a professional course and it would stand to reason that it would be run in a manner needed to secure the licence to do so - i.e. not with the same style, attitude, socratic method etc that attends undergraduate or some post-graduate courses.

One can't simply compare simply two different courses/syllabi taught in two different venues and conclude that one venue would be incapable of teaching a different course!

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Granted. So, the assumption that a university venue would create issues depends on the assumption that a pro-course at a university venue would be run in the same way as an undergraduate course.

Yes, PPC1 is completely different as is the BL degree, so a university teaching them would have to react to that difference and teach the course in a manner reflective of its requirements.

Its pointless to say the atmosphere in university is different to the professional courses because when you were university you weren't doing a professional course. Of course the attitudes were different because they were different courses. The point here is that universities could be free to run a professional course and it would stand to reason that it would be run in a manner needed to secure the licence to do so - i.e. not with the same style, attitude, socratic method etc that attends undergraduate or some post-graduate courses.

One can't simply compare simply two different courses/syllabi taught in two different venues and conclude that one venue would be incapable of teaching a different course!

So you're saying having the students of a professional course in the same venue (note the italics) as undergraduates would not have any effect whatsoever on the they way they act and the way the converse outside the classroom?

No.2

Carol Coulter has some interesting points on legal costs in today's Irish Times (last of the series on 'the law in crisis'):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0922/1224304520482.html

Editorial also on reform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0922/1224304521168.html

dermot_sheehan

No.2 wrote: »

Carol Coulter has some interesting points on legal costs in today's Irish Times (last of the series on 'the law in crisis'):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0922/1224304520482.html

Editorial also on reform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0922/1224304521168.html

Todays. Irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0926/1224304755660.html

Avatargh

I can't wait to have to pay my law library fees (say €5k), plus this new "levy" (pharmacies are about €3k...so assuming around that), plus having to deal with the possibility that insurance companies will take the view that if we can deal with the public, then we are dealing with the public and watching insurance shoot up unreasonably to about €5k a year. Yay.

I'm not really sure how any of this will reduce costs. One can't just "absorb" increases in the costs of running a business like this without passing it on. Of course, if I pass it on, and my fees are so high that I perish in the market - so be it. I am, however, having trouble to see how anyone is really just going to absorb these increases.

I may be overly pessimistic about insurance, but I can really see companies fidgeting with premiums if they get a whiff that MDP's may exist (even if they don't actually take off). From what I hear, no companies really gave two cents if a particular solicitor never had a claim against him, or was practising in a particular way that meant he never held client money, so I am a bit worried about this.

NoQuarter

Any updates on the legislation? Wasnt it due through parliament this week?

FreudianSlippers

NoQuarter wrote: »

Any updates on the legislation? Wasnt it due through parliament this week?

Tuesday I think!

Trilby76

There are some lawyers who may welcome the new regime:
http://www.accesslegal.ie/links/5-reasons-why-legal-fees-in-ireland-remain-high-2/

johnnyskeleton

Trilby76 wrote: »

There are some lawyers who may welcome the new regime:
http://www.accesslegal.ie/links/5-reasons-why-legal-fees-in-ireland-remain-high-2/

Interesting article and website, but perhaps not for the reasons the author believes.

He cites 5 reasons why fees remain high:

1) Lack of Competition - by this he means that the competition authority report has not been implemented yet. It is interesting to look at their "About" page, where they specify that they are a new kind of online business model whereby a barrister is the MD of a company that refers clients to solicitors. This cuts out unnecessary administrative costs and overheads, according to their blurb. However, does it really? They still have to pay insurance. They still need a secretary if they are busy. They still need assistants e.g. legal executives and trainees in order to ensure that busy periods are catered for. If they have somewhere else to work from, they don't need an office. However, I'm sure many solicitors would like to be able to work from home or from wherever, but outside certain nieche areas of law it is just not feasable.

But in any event, they are an entirely new kind of legal services provider. It is not clear whether the law society/bar council have authorised them to act in this way, but crucially, no one seems to be stopping them. It seems to me that if a completely unregulated (and I'm not for a minute suggesting that that group are) group of solicitors, barristers, legal executives, lawyers or even lay advisers were to get together and offer legal advisory services, there is nothing to stop them. Perhaps if the competition authority focussed on those market participants who are actually offering alternative business models and are facing regulatory hurdles and stopped trying to imagine alternative business structures, any barriers to competition would cease.

2) Lack of transparency on fees - here they argue that if people knew what the "standard rate" for legal services was, the market would operate better. In that regard, they suggest that internet advertised rates could act much like online insurance quotes would.

However, this group who is purporting to offer an alternative, don't publish their own fees.

I'd agree that some system of informing people about fees would be desireable. However, ultimately it is up to individuals to shop around and, more importantly, haggle over the price. Even if they are too frightened to do this with a lawyer, they are still entitled to do so after the litigation by means of taxation of costs.

But again, this is all very well, but for the fact that those who regularly use legal services know the prices and can bargain, many of those who don't use them that regularly don't expect to pay anything or any more than a nominal sum in respect of it, and for those remaining they can shop around, but often don't, and as we have seen in the last few years, cheaper is not necessarily better.

3. Big firms are under pressure to bill more - well sorry but if a solicitor is doing unnecessary work it is up to the client to question this. The best way for a client to prevent this is to offer a job lot fee. This works in most of the legal profession outside of the big firms and it is also much more efficient.

4. Alternative fee structures - again, thes operate outside of the big firms and usually work out cheaper. But clients are free to arrange to pay either a per case fee (as agreed) or a per hour fee (as agreed) according to their own needs.

5. Legal profession internally regulated - well, would they rather that it wasn't? Because the government doesn't seem interested in regulating it. These new models of business don't have any regulation or oversight at all, other than the free market. Besides, how does this lead to a lack of competition? How will an independent regulator increase competition?

The elephant in the room is, of course, that there are very high overheads involved in the legal industry, and this new regulator is basically a way for a new quango to be set up, presumably at the lawyers' expense. This is an increase in their overheads and will act as a disincentive to entry to the marketplace, particularly, as was previously suggested in the thread, this could be as high as €3k per firm. So we could have a situation where a new firm could pay €3k to the independent regulator, €3k to the law society/bar council and €6k in insurance per annum. That's €12k worth of overheads before anything else, and forgetting about rents, rates, staff, stationary, phones, light and heat etc.

So in total, what is this new structure suggesting we do to decrease fees? Well, nothing really. Sure, they are all for pointing out how things are at present, really or imaginary, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there is nothing on their website to suggest that they actually deliver legal services more efficiently than other firms.

Add to that legal services are an irrational good, and while it is usually the lawyer's fee increasing as demand for them increases, it is also the case that as their fees increase the demand for them increases. When someone is in trouble, they want the best, and the best is often the most expensive, in the eyes of the customer.

dermot_sheehan

It will be 300 pages apparently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4xigobGXmo

Jo King

Trilby76 wrote: »

There are some lawyers who may welcome the new regime:
http://www.accesslegal.ie/links/5-reasons-why-legal-fees-in-ireland-remain-high-2/

My understanding of that firm is that it would suit them if the current system stayed in place. They claim to be cheaper. If everyone else's prices came down to their level they would not get as much business.

Their Barrister MD does not practise. It is also a very high end type operation.

http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/law-firm-aims-for-realistic-prices-48804.html

Brother Psychosis

apologies if theres already a thread on this

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/legal-reform-bill-to-ban-lawyers-from-taking-cut-of-court-awards-2893195.html

thoughts?

Milk & Honey

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

apologies if theres already a thread on this

There is another thread!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056372927

Avatargh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Interesting article and website, but perhaps not for the reasons the author believes

I find this equally unconvincing for the points its making. It basically says "cutting out big firm overheads" has allowed them to reduce fees by a half?

But like...so what? What reasonable person didn't think that this was possible? Everyone knows that big firms charge big money and if you want, you can shop around and get a good service for less money. Just like big cars cost money, and little cars don't.

What I mean here is that the fees of big firms isn't really the point which should be under debate because there is nothing really to say that isn't already obvious. They charge high fees, and smaller firms may not.

This is effectively the same as saying "don't like a big firm, with big fees...well we're a small firm with smaller fees" which is precisely what existing solicitors are well able to say now without having to talk about new "business models" etc.

Indeed, isn't this model perhaps more expensive than simply a solicitors firm who rents a building? They have to pay a portion of fees to the person in charge? Why don't they just associate in a firm, themselves, without paying him? Actually, the more I think about this - how different is this from a small firm which is set up from very good solicitors who wanted a change from the big firms, rent a building, hire some staff, and charge less?

johnnyskeleton

Avatargh wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Interesting article and website, but perhaps not for the reasons the author believes

I find this equally unconvincing for the points its making. It basically says "cutting out big firm overheads" has allowed them to reduce fees by a half?

But like...so what? What reasonable person didn't think that this was possible? Everyone knows that big firms charge big money and if you want, you can shop around and get a good service for less money. Just like big cars cost money, and little cars don't.

What I mean here is that the fees of big firms isn't really the point which should be under debate because there is nothing really to say that isn't already obvious. They charge high fees, and smaller firms may not.

This is effectively the same as saying "don't like a big firm, with big fees...well we're a small firm with smaller fees" which is precisely what existing solicitors are well able to say now without having to talk about new "business models" etc.

Indeed, isn't this model perhaps more expensive than simply a solicitors firm who rents a building? They have to pay a portion of fees to the person in charge? Why don't they just associate in a firm, themselves, without paying him? Actually, the more I think about this - how different is this from a small firm which is set up from very good solicitors who wanted a change from the big firms, rent a building, hire some staff, and charge less?

Their stick as far as I can make out is that they don't rent thr building at all. Presumably it's just a postal address and they work from home or in the clients office. Probably a step too far on the old cost savings, but regardless, it is a new kind of business model and no one is stopping them. What is important is that the Market will decide whether this product is desireable or not.

Grolschevik

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000184

"The proposed Legal Services Bill will provide for three key entities —

· A new, independent, Legal Services Regulatory Authority with responsibility for oversight of both of the legal professions,

· an Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator to assume the role of the existing Office of the Taxing-Master which will be conferred with enhanced transparency in its functions. The legal costs regime will be brought out into the open with better public awareness and entitlement to legal costs information.

· an independent complaints structure to deal with complaints about professional misconduct – this will be supported by an independent Legal Professions Disciplinary Tribunal."

blueythebear

Grolschevik wrote: »

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR11000184

"The proposed Legal Services Bill will provide for three key entities —

· A new, independent, Legal Services Regulatory Authority with responsibility for oversight of both of the legal professions,

· an Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator to assume the role of the existing Office of the Taxing-Master which will be conferred with enhanced transparency in its functions. The legal costs regime will be brought out into the open with better public awareness and entitlement to legal costs information.

· an independent complaints structure to deal with complaints about professional misconduct – this will be supported by an independent Legal Professions Disciplinary Tribunal."

Oh great. More quango's staffed by the employees of the bodies the quango's were to replace! Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but am I the only one who thinks that the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and the Legal Professions Disciplinary Tribunal are just new names for existing bodies? i.e. Law Society / Bar Council and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal?

It reminds me of how NAMA operates. NAMA takes over developers properties and then NAMA gives six-figure salaries to the developers to manage their own properties because they are the people who know how to run the properties (despite the massive arrears in mortgage payments that casused NAMA to take over the propertties in the first place!). In this case, the existing bodies have apparent problems so the Government takes over but will offer jobs to the original staff as they know how the system works. So, essentially a new coat of paint and new signage above the door but I imagine that the status quo will not change too much.

The object of the Bill is to drive down legal costs and make legal costs more transparent. It would be simple to make available Taxing Masters judgements in a redacted form so that the public could access this info without any compromise of the identity of parties (and the identity of their legal representatives). This would provide transparency in respect of litigation.

Other than in actual litigation, costs should be determined by the market. It is not for the Government or anyone else to dictate how much a solicitor should charge for say a conveyance or other non-contentious work. People should shop around. If a solicitor will not give a proper estimate for work to be done, go somewhere else. If his quote is too large, negotiate or go somewhere else. A bit of education of the public would not go amiss here.

It's too easy for the public to point the finger at the legal profession rather than take responsibility for the fact that members of the public are embarassed to negotiate or discuss money on an upfront and honest basis. Before engaging a solicitor, ask for an honest and open discussion of fees and get a proper quote in terms of S68. Too many people get educated after the fact and start banging on about S68 AFTER they feel they have been overcharged.

For the purposes of transparency, perhaps each solicitor should be required to issue a standard letter to each new client (BEFORE acting for them) explaining the S68 requirements and indeed complying with them.

2 simple suggestions (make public Taxing Masters judgments and the above requirement explaining S68) which I think would certainly increase transparency in terms of legal profession fees (and perhaps reduce fees overall). Education of the public (to shop around) would also help to reduce fees.