Barristers fees

loremolis

Can anyone tell me whether Barristers are required to detail their fees in writing for a case, be it on a daily or hourly basis, before they are engaged by a solicitor?

johnnyskeleton

loremolis wrote: »

Can anyone tell me whether Barristers are required to detail their fees in writing for a case, be it on a daily or hourly basis, before they are engaged by a solicitor?

It's somewhat complex. Maybe a practising barrister on this board will correct my understanding, but I think it is something like this:

In a case where a new client comes to a solicitor who engages a barrister on the basis that they will be paid directly by the client (as opposed to a no foal no fee arrangement) then they are obliged, where it is practical, to set out an estimate of the overall costs and the basis of that calculation.

In all other cases it is not mandatory but can be requested by the client. So, where a solicitor works with a barrister in a dozen similar cases, or where the case is taken on pro bono (or no foal no fee or on legal aid) or where it is urgent or where the case is so complex that it cannot be accurately estimated at the start, then it is not required unless the client specifically asks for it.

If you want to agree a daily or hourly rate, you are free to do so. Likewise, you can ask for several barristers to provide an estimate, although you may have to pay for them reading the papers to give such an estimate.

loremolis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's somewhat complex. Maybe a practising barrister on this board will correct my understanding, but I think it is something like this:

In a case where a new client comes to a solicitor who engages a barrister on the basis that they will be paid directly by the client (as opposed to a no foal no fee arrangement) then they are obliged, where it is practical, to set out an estimate of the overall costs and the basis of that calculation.

In all other cases it is not mandatory but can be requested by the client. So, where a solicitor works with a barrister in a dozen similar cases, or where the case is taken on pro bono (or no foal no fee or on legal aid) or where it is urgent or where the case is so complex that it cannot be accurately estimated at the start, then it is not required unless the client specifically asks for it.

If you want to agree a daily or hourly rate, you are free to do so. Likewise, you can ask for several barristers to provide an estimate, although you may have to pay for them reading the papers to give such an estimate.

Thank you for that.

One other question.

Is a Barrister entitled to be paid their fee, either by the solicitor or the client, where they give wrong legal advice?

Mr. Incognito

Lol.

A barrister cannot be sued on the basis of anything he says on his feet.

Any written advices you are given will always say that they are subject to whims of the judge.

A solicitor can be sued for incorrect advice. A barrister will always include a caveat in my experience and will rarely hang their hat on yes / no uless they are 110% sure

hullaballoo

loremolis wrote: »

Thank you for that.

One other question.

Is a Barrister entitled to be paid their fee, either by the solicitor or the client, where they give wrong legal advice?

johnnyskeleton has given a pretty decent summary of the situation. Fees are calculated on the bases set out in the Code of Conduct of the Bar of Ireland. Generally, the fees are calculated within a scale depending on the complexity and nature of the work.


What the other poster has told you looks like legal advice to me and you should be very careful about following legal advice that does not come from someone who you know is qualified to give it. That's the reason for the rule against giving/seeking legal advice on this forum.

NoQuarter

loremolis wrote: »

Thank you for that.

One other question.

Is a Barrister entitled to be paid their fee, either by the solicitor or the client, where they give wrong legal advice?

Well advice is just that, advice. Its not a guarantee. That said, they are entitled to be paid their fee but can be sued if their advice amounted to negligent advice. A tough hurdle to overcome I'd imagine.

Also, just because a case is lost, doesnt mean the advice was wrong, otherwise half the Barristers in the country would be giving wrong advice every day as there is always a winner and loser to the case.

jblack

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Lol.

A barrister cannot be sued on the basis of anything he says on his feet.

Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons and Barratt v. Ansell and Others v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] Fam Law 806 (20th July, 2000)

ResearchWill

jblack wrote: »

Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons and Barratt v. Ansell and Others v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] Fam Law 806 (20th July, 2000)

If I remember correctly the Irish courts and Legislator have not yet followed the UK in this area. All the cases quoted are UK.

jblack

ResearchWill wrote: »

If I remember correctly the Irish courts and Legislator have not yet followed the UK in this area. All the cases quoted are UK.

Not yet, there has also been an erosion of immunity for expert witnesses in the UK (Jones v Kaney) - I would be interested to see if there are any differing policy implications that would stop the ratio of Arthur Hall being applied in Ireland.

Historically the progression is interesting, from the days of Chambers v Goldthorpe to Sutcliffe v Thackrah it seems there is a slow erosion of immunity for most.