Can i hire a barrister..

fortuneteller

Can anyone tell me if i can hire a barrister without going through a solictor.
I'm currently on legal aid but im worried that my solictor is not really bothered if i get a conviction or not..And it's a section 2 assault charge

The solictor said im not allowed to contact the barrister directly..??? is this true?

johnnyskeleton

fortuneteller wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if i can hire a barrister without going through a solictor.
I'm currently on legal aid but im worried that my solictor is not really bothered if i get a conviction or not..And it's a section 2 assault charge

The solictor said im not allowed to contact the barrister directly..??? is this true?

No you can't, for two reasons:

1. Barristers have to be briefed through a solicitor and cannot represent you (as matters stand) without a solicitor.

2. If you're on legal aid you shouldn't be able to afford to hire anybody.

Milk & Honey

fortuneteller wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if i can hire a barrister without going through a solictor.
I'm currently on legal aid but im worried that my solictor is not really bothered if i get a conviction or not..And it's a section 2 assault charge

The solictor said im not allowed to contact the barrister directly..??? is this true?

You can change your solicitor if you are not happy.

fortuneteller

I cant afford a barrister i will have to borrow the fee.
But i can less afford a conviction for assault, when i was only defending myself against
a scumbag that lied in his statement to gardai, and then got two other scumbags that we not even there to make false statements to back up his lies

Delancey

Unfortunately you are caught up in one of the more heavily criticized rules of the legal profession in that it is indeed correct to say you cannot approach a Barrister directly but rather must first employ a Solicitor.
Personally I think it is all an exercise in generating fees though doubtless others here will disagree.

johnnyskeleton

Delancey wrote: »

Personally I think it is all an exercise in generating fees though doubtless others here will disagree.

Maybe so but when (or if, given its slow progress) the new bill becomes law, we will see if the current arrangements will survive. Barristers would need to take on additional staff, premises, insurance etc if they were to act directly, and they will lose the benefit of being independent.

The reality is that our once robust legal aid system has been cut so much that many solicitors do not have the time to spend hours pouring over statements with each client. If they did, they would simply go out of business. They provide a perfectly competent service, but its a no frills business model. The fee structures also disincentivise lawyers to spend more than the standard time on each case.

As bad as it is that we are becoming more like America, if you want the gold plated service you have to pay privately. The OP chose the legal aid route instead which is fine, but he can't expect legal aid to be the same as full private client service, any more than a homeless person can complain that his hostel bed isn't exactly the Hilton with room service and a mint under the pillow.

This will become more obvious as the best criminal lawyers will spend more time on bankers fraud trials than on legal aid cases in the near future.

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The reality is that our once robust legal aid system has been cut so much that many solicitors do not have the time to spend hours pouring over statements with each client.

What do they spend their hours doing?.......I thought it was all the hours they had to put in justified their fees. The law is very serious business. A screw up, sloppiness, or laziness, could destroy someone's life.

A few thousand is actually a lot of money to ordinary people.

If they did, they would simply go out of business. They provide a perfectly competent service, but its a no frills business model. The fee structures also disincentivise lawyers to spend more than the standard time on each case.

As bad as it is that we are becoming more like America, if you want the gold plated service you have to pay privately. The OP chose the legal aid route instead which is fine, but he can't expect legal aid to be the same as full private client service, any more than a homeless person can complain that his hostel bed isn't exactly the Hilton with room service and a mint under the pillow.

Are you saying that the lawyers who do legal aid, are on some kind of minimum wage, so they do a minimum service?

If they fail their client because they don't feel they've been paid enough, they are committing a serious breach of morals.

This will become more obvious as the best criminal lawyers will spend more time on bankers fraud trials than on legal aid cases in the near future.

If we ever get to see a banker in court.

mikemac1

If they stopped giving legal aid to people like 30 or 40 or 50 convictions there might be more available to pay for people who need it

Sure if you've that many convictions you're probably an expert on the law already!

From Galway

A MAN with 56 previous convictions and at least €44,000 worth of annual social welfare benefits got free legal aid for his latest court case, drawing criticism of the system from the judge.

Judge Mary Fahy objected to "this free legal aid for people who are recidivists".

"If they had to pay the money out of their own pockets they might not be so quick to reoffend. I don't think this can last, the system will have to be overhauled," she said.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-with-56-convictions-on-44000-gets-legal-aid-2538080.html