Reform of the Legal Services Sector

Trilby76

The Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 was published on the Oireachtas website this morning. http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/document2.pdf
I like it.

hullaballoo

I've just skimmed through the Legal Services Bill and I'm actually tentatively happy with its provisions. It does not go so far as I had expected, nor does it radically change the current system. It seems to look at cleaning up the acts of legal practitioners who were perhaps not subject to enough scrutiny before now.

On the other hand, there are provisions that are silly and others that could go either way. In particular, there are some stupid requirements in relation to becoming a Senior Counsel to do with "temperament" and there's also a prohibition on advertising "in bad taste". Subjective provisions like these are simply not worth anything.

The major problem that will directly raise the bar to entry, rather than the other way around is that the Legal Services Regulatory Authority is to be funded by the professional bodies i.e., the Bar Council and Law Society. Of course, those bodies are funded by the professionals themselves and this will increase the fees payable by members. The obvious upshot of this is that people who do not have the luxury of pre-arranged finance (or rich parents etc.) simply will not be able to afford to practice.

In relation to fees, it will be useful for practitioners (especially junior ones) to have guidelines in relation to fees for particular areas/types of work. I would welcome that change. The Bill envisages that Cost Adjudicators will replace the Taxing Masters and these Cost Adjudicators will be legal cost accountants. I think there will be an appreciation for the value of the work we do, without a toleration for the types of exorbitant fees sometimes charged by particular practitioners, where those fees simply do not reflect the actual work done.

The bar on marking a percentage of an award is put on a statutory footing as is the bar on the two-thirds rule, so there is nothing new there.

One crucial change that I would welcome is that the Bill will effectively remove the bar on barristers suing for their fees. It creates a means to form what is effectively a contract between barrister and client that is enforceable both ways. Of course, there is an argument that this impinges on the independence of the bar and the duties to the court, but in effect, the enforcement process envisaged seems to weigh against this. In other words, I don't see how the agreements could give rise to a barrister looking for a win "at all costs", irrespective of the truth etc. of the situation.

The other big changes are a degree of direct access to barristers (though, only in non-contentious matters) and the removal of the sole practitioner rule. We might see chambers, but the Bill does not appear to be aimed at achieving chambers at all costs.

That's all I can think of saying for now, but I know there were other aspects that stuck out. Maybe it's better not to post a wall of text on this just yet anyway!

Avatargh

Equally interesting is that a patent of precedence will require "professional independence". I'm not necessarily sure how professional independence would be shown if, for example, a professional in an MDP was required to refuse particular types of work because it was not lucrative for the MDP.

Avatargh

hullaballoo wrote: »

In relation to fees, it will be useful for practitioners (especially junior ones) to have guidelines in relation to fees for particular areas/types of work. I would welcome that change. The Bill envisages that Cost Adjudicators will replace the Taxing Masters and these Cost Adjudicators will be legal cost accountants. I think there will be an appreciation for the value of the work we do, without a toleration for the types of exorbitant fees sometimes charged by particular practitioners, where those fees simply do not reflect the actual work done.

Yeah...seems reasonable. We'll end up, I assume, getting paid more money for lower value work (which requires lots of work), and silly fees will be ruled out as just that. Fine with me!

FreudianSlippers

Haven't had a chance to look yet myself, but heard a lot about barristers being brought into firms and companies; yet still being able to act as barristers in the courts. Effectively a type of in-house counsel.
Did that make an appearance into the Bill?

234

So am I missing something or does this finally clear the way for barristers to bill clients directly? And what's going on with the Senior Counsel Solicitors???

hullaballoo

Yes, barristers can be in-house and appear in court under the Bill and Solicitors can apply for a patent. The criteria for the membership of the inner bar are similar to those already in place. There is a reference here to temperament.

The fact that a solicitor can become a senior counsel without ever having been a junior counsel is probably counter-intuitive, quite a bit silly, but hardly unexpected in the circumstances.

As far as I can see, it's not that barristers can bill directly for our fees, but rather that we must do so. There is a section that relates to the service of notices, though I am unsure what place it has because it doesn't appear to be contextualised by the preceding/subsequent section.

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Haven't had a chance to look yet myself, but heard a lot about barristers being brought into firms and companies; yet still being able to act as barristers in the courts. Effectively a type of in-house counsel.
Did that make an appearance into the Bill?

The sections of the bill that allow the creation of legal partnerships, where at least on member is a barrister, will come into effect immediately if it passed in the current form. There is also provision for barristers to be employed (but not by solicitors) and still practice as barristers including representing their employers. This seems like it will inevitable lead to the best SCs in certain areas being snapped by by large insurance companies and the like. I don't know how much scrutiny this will come under in the following legislative stages but I hope that it is dropped.

In terms of the cost of th levy; 10% of the costs of the regulator paid by the Bar Council, 10% by the Law Society and the remained allocated to either of the two bodies on a pro rata basis depending on the composition of the complaints generated as between barristers and solicitors. Hopefully this will lead to most of it being dumped on the Law Society (sorry solicitors ).

The issue with independence is as bad as the media made out. All members appointed by the Minister. They report to the minister. He can set out terms of reference for reports that he requires, etc. He can essentially tell them what to do.

The regulator has to immediately prepare a report on fusing the legal profession. The bill is obviously biased towards fusing; the following section sets out how things should happen if the decision is in favour of fusing, nothing is said about what will happen if the decision is not favourable.

The whole bill manifests a suspicion of the legal profession. The regularot won't even have a quorum if the majority of the members present are not from the legal profession. The chairperson has to be lay, etc.

Some welcome modernisation, lots of unwelcome intrusion.

Just to add to that, the Minister can set the remuneration of the members of the Authority meaning that he effectively holds the purse strings for the entire composition. How in God's name is that independent??

234

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to add to that, the Minister can set the remuneration of the members of the Authority meaning that he effectively holds the purse strings for the entire composition. How in God's name is that independent??

Well if the public don't accept that argument for judges then it won't stand a chance for the new regulator. To top it all, barristers and solicitors will then pay the salaries of those who they don't want regulating them.

Avatargh

234 wrote: »

There is also provision for barristers to be employed (but not by solicitors) and still practice as barristers including representing their employers. This seems like it will inevitable lead to the best SCs in certain areas being snapped by by large insurance companies and the like.

Not going to happen in a million years. People become barristers because they don't want to be employed. Further, the salaries that could legitimately be offered by a single insurance company wouldn't come close to matching what someone akin to the "best" SC would make. Won't happen!

FreudianSlippers

Avatargh wrote: »

Not going to happen in a million years. People become barristers because they don't want to be employed. Further, the salaries that could legitimately be offered by a single insurance company wouldn't come close to matching what someone akin to the "best" SC would make. Won't happen!

I was thinking that as well and someone said it to me the other day.

The companies won't want junior barristers who would be most keen to take a salary in-house and still act as a barrister. Those who are established already won't want to go in-house because it will be a reduction in their wages.

234

But how much do you think an insurance company would pay to have a skilled SC as "Head of Litigation", or some equivilent title. Also, if one of two start doing it then the rest will follow in a domino effect as they beceom scared that all the best talent is being snapped up and they will be left with the self-employed "duds". I'd image they would have the reserves to make some very attractive offers.

No.2

234 wrote: »

The sections of the bill that allow the creation of legal partnerships, where at least on member is a barrister, will come into effect immediately if it passed in the current form. There is also provision for barristers to be employed (but not by solicitors) and still practice as barristers including representing their employers. This seems like it will inevitable lead to the best SCs in certain areas being snapped by by large insurance companies and the like. I don't know how much scrutiny this will come under in the following legislative stages but I hope that it is dropped.

I don't think this is true with respect to legal partnerships. Section 1(3) provides that section 72 (on Legal partnerships) comes into force only after a period after the LSRA submits a report due on their operation to the minister.

johnnyskeleton

234 wrote: »

But how much do you think an insurance company would pay to have a skilled SC as "Head of Litigation", or some equivilent title. Also, if one of two start doing it then the rest will follow in a domino effect as they beceom scared that all the best talent is being snapped up and they will be left with the self-employed "duds". I'd image they would have the reserves to make some very attractive offers.

Do the insurance companies place such a premium on advocacy skills? It seems to me that they place very little faith in lawyers.

Overall, I think the bill is actually pretty reasonable. It probably won't change much.

dazza21ie

It will be interesting to see the Law Society's response to the Bill. From first reading they will lose control of regulation and education. It could leave the powers that be with very little to do!

johnnyskeleton

dazza21ie wrote: »

It will be interesting to see the Law Society's response to the Bill. From first reading they will lose control of regulation and education. It could leave the powers that be with very little to do!

But ironically, the bill does not make membership of the law society any less mandatory and costly. So while barristers can be represented by the bar council, or not, or by a new organisation, solicitors still have to be represented by the law society and regulated by the new body.

Avatargh

234 wrote: »

But how much do you think an insurance company would pay to have a skilled SC as "Head of Litigation", or some equivilent title. Also, if one of two start doing it then the rest will follow in a domino effect as they beceom scared that all the best talent is being snapped up and they will be left with the self-employed "duds". I'd image they would have the reserves to make some very attractive offers.

Why would they want to? If they want to save costs it would be on litigation so they would want someone to do it, rather than just "head" their already existing methods? The bottom line is that people will go where there can make the most money. If we're talking about an SC taking a position at, say, 200k, then you have to wonder how good the SC really was. If we're talking about taking the best and the top, the companies won't be in a position to offer attractive salaries without causing uproar within their own staffing. It's not going to happen.

Avatargh

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, barristers can be in-house and appear in court under the Bill and Solicitors can apply for a patent. The criteria for the membership of the inner bar are similar to those already in place. There is a reference here to temperament.

The fact that a solicitor can become a senior counsel without ever having been a junior counsel is probably counter-intuitive, quite a bit silly, but hardly unexpected in the circumstances.

As far as I can see, it's not that barristers can bill directly for our fees, but rather that we must do so. There is a section that relates to the service of notices, though I am unsure what place it has because it doesn't appear to be contextualised by the preceding/subsequent section.

And barristers can sue for fees! Finally! THAT is going to be a wake-up call. Can't wait for that...positively itching to get some Civil Bill's out now. I must be €80k out of pocket on unpaid fees at this point. Haven't examined if its retrospective or not, but no-foal, no-fee is certainly going to have to take a back burner.

Delancey

Surely the ending of the Law Society's dual role as regulator and representative body for solicitors is to be applauded , imo the scope for conflict of interest is huge.
From what I can see the public has little confidence in the Society as regulator and Solicitors ( well those from smaller practices at any rate ) don't think much of it as a representatative body.

johnnyskeleton

Delancey wrote: »

Surely the ending of the Law Society's dual role as regulator and representative body for solicitors is to be applauded , imo the scope for conflict of interest is huge.
Far what I can see the public has little confidence in the Society as regulator and Solicitors ( well those from smaller practices at any rate ) don't think much of it as a representatative body.

Regulation could actually be worse. First, much of the disciplinary matters arise out of internal audits by the law society. That's how many of the big, multi client scams have been uncovered. There is some scope for this type of audit in the new bill, but it is a new process and there is no reason to believe it will be any better.

Further, the law society disciplinary committee have had to be like Caesars wife, beyond reproach. This new body will not have thr same incentive to be hard on solicitors.

So I can see it being a weaker form of regulation. Certainly, the only major difference is that the seven independent non lawyers will now be hand picked by the minister for justice. This is no improvement and potentially a step backwards.

But in a sense the people get what they want, not what they need, and if a weaker but notionally more independent body is what they want I'm sure solicitors are happy to accept. Perhaps the public will assist with some of the cost, or at least agree to keep the costs down.

blueythebear

234 wrote: »

In terms of the cost of th levy; 10% of the costs of the regulator paid by the Bar Council, 10% by the Law Society and the remained allocated to either of the two bodies on a pro rata basis depending on the composition of the complaints generated as between barristers and solicitors. Hopefully this will lead to most of it being dumped on the Law Society (sorry solicitors ).

I'd have a huge problem with the division of the complaints. Most complaints will be against solicitors as solicitors deal with money and nothing generates complaints like disputes about fees. Is a client going to complain about COunsel's performance in COurt or in their drafting skills when most clients would not be in a position to comprehend the arguments being made in the first place?

Also, going to the composition of the Authority, they're all Government appointments so you can guarantee they'll be well paid so the fees are going to be pretty large with the Law Soc paying most of it on account of the above.

Basically, the cost of a practising certificate is going to go up despite recent increases in relation to the SMDF bailout.

234 wrote: »

The issue with independence is as bad as the media made out. All members appointed by the Minister. They report to the minister. He can set out terms of reference for reports that he requires, etc. He can essentially tell them what to do.

The independence issue is a joke. That is not an independent authority where the Government appoints every member and most of those are "laypeople". Laypeople is not defined so who gets the positions? These positions will be used as political currency for Political Parties to placate disgruntled members etc just like the other jobs in the various quangos.

Stating that the authority is "independent" in its' functions does not actually make it so.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

But how much do you think an insurance company would pay to have a skilled SC as "Head of Litigation", or some equivilent title. Also, if one of two start doing it then the rest will follow in a domino effect as they beceom scared that all the best talent is being snapped up and they will be left with the self-employed "duds". I'd image they would have the reserves to make some very attractive offers.

That's basically my point. Presumably most SCs wont want to go in-house if they're worth their weight (in money ).

It's the junior JCs that will see a starting salary as appealing, but will the companies want them? Probably not.

Also I don't think all self-employed people left at the bar would be "duds"; there would need to be a good pool of self-employed barristers to take cases for smaller firms that couldn't afford to hire a barrister to work in-house.

If someone offered me (be it a company or some sort of chambers) a salary to work as a barrister tomorrow morning, I don't think I could say I wouldn't take it. The work I do get is rewarding and good, but there are simply too many people at the bar with not enough work; it's very obvious to a lot of people.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

but there are simply too many people at the bar with not enough work; it's very obvious to a lot of people.

How do you measure this though? There is an argument that every industry should have people who operate at a loss for a few years in order to gain experience in it. Most resteraunts close within a year of opening. Does that mean that there are too many resteraunts with not enough mouths to feed?

I don't think it can be said that most barristers leave after a year, so while it is a comptitive industry, I don't think it can definitatively be said that there are too many barristers for not enough work.

andrewdeerpark

Just starting the ball rolling on the Prime Time program tonight

A couple of points:

Why are organisations such as the NRA and other public bodies not publically disclosing the amount of legal fees they pay? Either on specific cases of in general, protection of the high earners and the norm, that is the robbing legal profession?!

Where was Alan Shatter, plus why was it not mentioned his own firms's high fees that was in the spotlight recently:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/shatter-firms-disputed-bill-tops-euro500000-2889153.html

Where did they get the weak sap that was sparring against the legal professions rep; he was useless?

Why the host did not pursue the secretive nature of legal fees in family law cases which is in the legal professions favour?

Overall a very poor panel discussion followed the excellent opening video

Delancey

Agree that the panel were pure rubbish - waffled and not much else.

emick

It is still difficult for people to change solicitors if they are unhappy with the services being provided by their current solicitor. The Legal Services Bill offers no reform in this area. A person's existing solicitor can make switching to a new solicitor a very difficult process by retaining their clients file and not releasing it until all bills are settled. The bill amount may be totally out of proportion with the services provided to the client but the client has little option but to pay in order to facilitate the return of his documents/file.

nuac

Re File handover

The new solicitor may be able to undertake to pay the fees due.

If the amount is substantial a legal accountant can be asked to measure a fee.

emick

nuac wrote: »

Re File handover

The new solicitor may be able to undertake to pay the fees due.

If the amount is substantial a legal accountant can be asked to measure a fee.

Both solutions benefit the solicitor not the consumer. Solicitors should be subject to the same rules and regulations with regard to renumeration as every other profession. A solicitor should not be entitled to hold on to litigation documents or other files belonging to the client because his fee has not been paid. If the client is unhappy with the service from his existing solicitor then he should be allowed to switch to a new solicitor without hinderance.

nuac

If you have a builder employed on your premises, and disagree with him, you will find in 90% of cases that a second builder will not take over until the first builder is paid, or a procedure set up to ensure is payment e.g. agreement to have a QS adjudicate.

In the same way it is reasonable for your first solicitor to request payment before handing over the file. If cash is not available the usual procedure is for the second solicitor, on your authority, to undertake for payment of the fees. The amount due can either be agreed, or a mechanism set up such as reference to an independent legal accountant to settle amount,

People are entitled to change solicitors for all sorts of reasons, or indeed without giving any reason at all. Provision of legal services is a free market. There are about 7000 of us in the market. However no business could survive if clients could just change from one service provider to another without paying or providing for payment for the service rendered,

FreudianSlippers

emick wrote: »

Solicitors should be subject to the same rules and regulations with regard to renumeration as every other profession.

What other profession that is not paid out of the public purse has regulations that set fees? Taxis might be about the only thing I can think of... still it's fairly ridiculous to say that the government should regulate the fees of private individuals; you don't like the fees, shop around.

johnnyskeleton

emick wrote: »

It is still difficult for people to change solicitors if they are unhappy with the services being provided by their current solicitor. The Legal Services Bill offers no reform in this area. A person's existing solicitor can make switching to a new solicitor a very difficult process by retaining their clients file and not releasing it until all bills are settled. The bill amount may be totally out of proportion with the services provided to the client but the client has little option but to pay in order to facilitate the return of his documents/file.

My understanding, and I could be wrong because the law is somewhat unclear, is that you are entitled to have any original documents that you gave to your solicitor handed back. These are your property, and a solicitor has to right to them.

However, any work done on the file is the intellectual property of the solicitor and it represents all the work they've done for you. It only becomes "your file" in the truest sense when you have paid them for it and the intellectual property passes to you. It is absolutely no different to asking someone to design your website and them not handing over the files until you have paid them.

NoQuarter

Committee Stage scheduled for 10th July. We have movement!

Cody Pomeray

Well good. I personally intend to write a strongly worded letter to the committee, advocating a specific ban on shawleys. Given some very interesting opinions expressed in the other thread, I'm sure everyone can agree the gown must remain 'on' or 'off'.

In all seriousness, the partnerships idea is the biggest provision here. I can see the logic behind it, but if I do have any sentimentality for the profession it must be in relation to the Law library and its unifying role amongst the profession. I would welcome anything that provides (especially young, talented) BLs with greater security in their working life. On the other hand, the fact that entry to the Bar is not subject to very onerous requirements of social contacts, combined with the cab rank rule have made the law library a surprisingly democratic institution. I would worry about the effects of partnerships on both access to justice, and on access to a successful career at the Bar.

NoQuarter

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In all seriousness, the partnerships idea is the biggest provision here. I can see the logic behind it, but if I do have any sentimentality for the profession it must be in relation to the Law library and its unifying role amongst the profession. I would welcome anything that provides (especially young, talented) BLs with greater security in their working life. On the other hand, the fact that entry to the Bar is not subject to very onerous requirements of social contacts, combined with the cab rank rule have made the law library a surprisingly democratic institution. I would worry about the effects of partnerships on both access to justice, and on access to a successful career at the Bar.

I wonder would it have much of an effect at all. So people will partner up, all the big SC's are in chambers already more or less. The share offices and secretary and work no doubt gets passed around. s there any mention in the Bill to abolish the law library? If not, I would imagine that life will continue as normal at the bar and perhaps the only difference will be more desk space.

The one part of the bill I hope pulls through is allowing in-house Barristers to be able to represent their employer at the bar. Here's hoping.

Cody Pomeray

NoQuarter wrote: »

Is there any mention in the Bill to abolish the law library? If not, I would imagine that life will continue as normal at the bar and perhaps the only difference will be more desk space.

I don't think anybody can really believe that the only consequence will be more desk space.

The concentration of work amongst formal legal partnerships is inevitably going to create a two tiered (or a multi-tiered) system, with those BLs operating alone out of the law library pretty much at the bottom of the heap (and paying heavily for insurance, necessitated by cheaper litigation). The library will almost certainly shrink from relevance. For all of the benefits that increased competition, and increased stability will bring, there are also certain drawbacks both for the profession, and indeed for the public interest.

NoQuarter

There may well be more consequences. I, however, don't envision the apocalypse you do. Interesting to watch it unfold though. On my reading - from the inception of the Bill, there is 18 months in which the independent regulatory body for the Bar will need to be set up, I wonder will things on the ground change before then or wait for the regulator.

FreudianSlippers

I have firmly believed for some time that the bar council is a pyramid scheme in structure (not a scam, but the bottom subsidises the top significantly). I am hearing a lot of stories that disgust me in the way junior members are treated and find that the only people calling for the absolute protection of the status quo are the ones gaining significant monetary benefit from it.

I also believe the idea of multi-disciplinary partnerships (especially in-house barristers and barristers in solicitors firms) is vital to providing economic stability and a more cost-effective solution to many legal scenarios. I don't see it will damage the independence of the bar in any real way.

nuac

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have firmly believed for some time that the bar council is a pyramid scheme in structure (not a scam, but the bottom subsidises the top significantly). I am hearing a lot of stories that disgust me in the way junior members are treated and find that the only people calling for the absolute protection of the status quo are the ones gaining significant monetary benefit from it.

I also believe the idea of multi-disciplinary partnerships (especially in-house barristers and barristers in solicitors firms) is vital to providing economic stability and a more cost-effective solution to many legal scenarios. I don't see it will damage the independence of the bar in any real way.

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

NoQuarter

nuac wrote: »

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

How do you suppose that will pan out? I've heard a number of people say this but I don't really see it. People are afraid that the cream of the crop Barristers will go in-house and be under contract so as to not be able to take on any outside cases. But I don't think solicitor's firms would be able to afford the cream of the crop and put them on retainer anyway. If the top SC did that they would be taking pay cuts I'd imagine.

How do you say it would work practically speaking?

valleyoftheunos

My only concern in relation to the bar is that I won't be able to instruct the counsel I want to or that the pool of barristers available to me will be significantly reduced. I'm off two minds as to whether this is likely to happen, in one scenario I think it unlikely that counsel will flock to join MDPs or go in house, the independence of the job is one of the top reasons for most of the inhabitants in the Law Library being there in the first place.

On the other hand if it does prove that it is a better way for them to find consistent work many will do it which could result in restricted numbers and certain counsel being unavailable.

Tom Young

Most of the reform proposals will ultimately ratchet up costs .... its as simple as that. Amercianising the system - hour defined billing is far better and (multiple times) more expensive that the Counsel briefing system. So, there you are. Expect more neat bills - costs will go up.

FreudianSlippers

nuac wrote: »

I think MDPs involving barristers will compromise the independence of the bar, and reduce the facility of every and any solicitor's practice being able to brief the barrister they want for the particular case.

The cab-rank principle is a good and valuable one

I just don't buy that. Specifically in corporate law, companies are 'briefing' one barrister for all cases as is. I use 'briefing' semi-sarcastically as most are ok retainer anyway. Some solicitors firms in certain matters are the same, using a handful of counsel

The only potential danger is in personal injury and negligence plaintiff action and family law; but I don't foresee the current system changing in these matters.

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

Most of the reform proposals will ultimately ratchet up costs .... its as simple as that. Amercianising the system - hour defined billing is far better and (multiple times) more expensive that the Counsel briefing system. So, there you are. Expect more neat bills - costs will go up.

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

I thought it was possible to make a counter offer to an Irish solicitor/barrister. As in firm A says we normally charge €1,000 but if I say I was thinking of going with firm B for €900 they can agree to do it for me at €900.

I sometimes think that most of the alleged anti-competitiveness in the legal sector is due to the inability or unwillingness of the clients themselves to strike a better deal.

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought it was possible to make a counter offer to an Irish solicitor/barrister. As in firm A says we normally charge €1,000 but if I say I was thinking of going with firm B for €900 they can agree to do it for me at €900.

I sometimes think that most of the alleged anti-competitiveness in the legal sector is due to the inability or unwillingness of the clients themselves to strike a better deal.

In fact, setting out a detailed note of expenses may be worse for the client because what I see on an almost daily basis now is clients, after the case is concluded, seeking a reduction in the fees previously agreed. Which they inevitably get. That might not happen if there is a super structured breakdown of the fees charged.

nuac

NoQuarter wrote: »

How do you suppose that will pan out? I've heard a number of people say this but I don't really see it. People are afraid that the cream of the crop Barristers will go in-house and be under contract so as to not be able to take on any outside cases. But I don't think solicitor's firms would be able to afford the cream of the crop and put them on retainer anyway. If the top SC did that they would be taking pay cuts I'd imagine.

How do you say it would work practically speaking?

Sorry - don't know. Have spent my time ( 50 years ) on the solicitors side, working mainly with circuit going barristers, except for some cases requiring specialists.

would be concerned about anything that limits choice of barrister

Bluegrass1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, but people want a clear and competitive system. Just like in the US, if firm A charges €1000 and firm B charges €900, you have the option and a clear breakdown. At the moment, everyone is charging broadly the same amount and it is often pulled out of thin air.

What if firm A can do the job in 20 hours and firm B makes 30 hours out of it?

Grolschevik

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

What if firm A can do the job in 20 hours and firm B makes 30 hours out of it?

And to add to that, what if Firm A uses two fee-earners to complete it in the 20, while Firm B uses one for the 30?

NoQuarter

nuac wrote: »

Sorry - don't know. Have spent my time ( 50 years ) on the solicitors side, working mainly with circuit going barristers, except for some cases requiring specialists.

would be concerned about anything that limits choice of barrister

Yeah it is very difficult to gauge at the moment. I dont think it should be overstated so much though, Barristers do the job because of the independence it brings, if they wanted to join a law firm or go in-house they have that choice already and choose not to go so this Bill may not have a huge effect on taking away readily available Barristers and those that want to remain independent and want to give their practice the best chance of being successful would be unwise to contract with a big firm exclusively I think.