Judge Kelly, Shatter, and judicial independence

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes which means no matter how you put it that the pay of judges is now in the control of the government.

Substantively speaking, it always was!

Ever since the Courts confirmed judges' statutory tax obligations in 1959, the Government have always effectively controlled judicial salaries. But then - and now - those various taxes, levies or charges which the State may choose to raise from time to time cannot be applied specifically and exclusively to Judges.

If you want to talk about the independence of the Judiciary being threatened - yes it is under threat. It is under threat every single day the higher courts sit and deliberate their decisions. Hanging over them are promotions within the Irish system, promotions to the European courts and within the European courts, renewable terms depending on a Government's satisfaction with their decisions.

THESE are the serious interferences with judicial independence. This silly little spat about judges salaries being reduced in line with other public servant and office holders is mindless tedium.

PRAF

By the way, I have no problem with the setting up of an independent body to determine the pay and conditions of the judiciary. However, who decides who gets to be on the independent body? Is it the govt (same issue about 'control of the judiciary then applies) or the judiciary (conflict of interest would apply).

My strong contention is that because we are a member of the EU, and are part of the Euro area, that such a body contain representatives from those areas who would ensure that pay is benchmarked to European and Euro area norms. I am sure most judges would agree with that.

I would also argue that such an independent body should have due regard to social solidarity, justice and fairness of pay. It is a well-established fact that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem (including crime and punishment). I would love to see the judges take a stand for social justice and equality by ensuring their pay is no more than 2 times the average industrial wage. Again, I'm sure most judges would agree with that.

Cody Pomeray

PRAF wrote: »

My strong contention is that because we are a member of the EU, and are part of the Euro area, that such a body contain representatives from those areas who would ensure that pay is benchmarked to European and Euro area norms. I am sure most judges would agree with that.

I am sure someone will prove me wrong here, but my understanding is that Judicial salaries of the EU courts are themselves linked to senior civil service salaries at EU level.

Which, given that it should make judicial pay-cuts even more straightforward, should send individuals who are already extremely upset and worried about the pensions levy into a state of dangerous catatonia.

Zubeneschamali

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Oireachtas has control over them - a judge can be dismissed by a vote of both houses - but that is distinct from the government having control over them.
...
That's what makes it dangerous - and the more so because the Irish legislature, who are also supposed to be a check on the executive, are a rubber-stamp body.

These two points seem to me to contradict each other. Judges could always be dismissed by the Oireachtas, and the Oireachtas is a rubber stamp for the Government.

Judges have always been subject to dismissal and replacement by the Government. This is a much more damaging power than the power to adjust the wage scale of all judges.

Yet it is the pay issue that has the judges organising their new union association, and talking in public in a way calculated to embarrass the Government.

Curly Judge

VinLieger wrote: »

Did you even read my post? I said they should have pay cuts but allowing the government to control it is completely against seperation of powers. Also i didnt say they should have a say, i said input on how they are chosen not a black ball system on who is chosen.
Seriously read a post properly before respponding to it

I was shocked to the core by the impetus of the above response and so I reread your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinLieger
So what if they are political appointees, they should still have complete independence from the government so no control can be excerted upon them. Ive no problem with pay being cut but why not an independent body? That makes no sense.
And then for the insolvency courts, its completely understandable they expect to be consulted, the government are about to add a ton of new judges to fill the seats of these courts so why shouldnt the current judges be consulted at least on the appointment and vetting process and to advise on what qualifications and experience needs to be required

I have to say that it might be an idea if you were to reread your own posts before pressing the send button, with a view to reconciling what is on the screen compared with what may, or may not, be in the back of your brain.

VinLieger

Curly Judge wrote: »

I was shocked to the core by the impetus of the above response and so I reread your post.



I have to say that it might be an idea if you were to reread your own posts before pressing the send button, with a view to reconciling what is on the screen compared with what may, or may not, be in the back of your brain.

Okay ill bite lets disect my 2 posts then, ive linked the 2 relevant parts by bolding and underlining each.

VinLieger wrote: »

So what if they are political appointees, they should still have complete independence from the government so no control can be excerted upon them. Ive no problem with pay being cut but why not an independent body? That makes no sense.
And then for the insolvency courts, its completely understandable they expect to be consulted, the government are about to add a ton of new judges to fill the seats of these courts so why shouldnt the current judges be consulted at least on the appointment and vetting process and to advise on what qualifications and experience needs to be required

VinLieger wrote: »

Did you even read my post? I said they should have pay cuts but allowing the government to control it is completely against seperation of powers. Also i didnt say they should have a say, i said input on how they are chosen not a black ball system on who is chosen.
Seriously read a post properly before respponding to it

Dont see where you seem to think ive contradicted myself?

FreudianSlippers

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough they were allowed give input but from speaking to people i know who are barristers and work for the law society all input has been dismissed by the minister. However i can agree my views might be slightly clouded by knowing these people and their opinions, but i think shatter is also using the percieved supperiority complex of the legal professions(right or wrong) to sway public opinion in his favour.
I do agree Judges pay needed to be addressed but his dismissing of an independent body out of hand surely is questionable?

I disagree with you here. The problem is that both the bar council and law society said no to the Bill without putting forward an alternative. The official line is simply "no change" and that's not right. Neither one of these for-profit organisations have their members' interests at heart (safe a small few at the top). The fact is reform is needed - Shatter's Bill is far from perfect, but it beats doing nothing and keeping the status quo as 'proposed' by the bar council and law society

recedite

Scofflaw wrote: »

Allowing the government to arbitrarily reduce the pay of all judges is an obvious control mechanism - people tend to expand their outgoings to match their incomes, which means that the government can at any point seriously inconvenience all sitting members of the judiciary by knocking their pay down a good chunk. Those in the judiciary who would be most inconvenienced by that will be thought of by those who might not be, so that after a bit all judges become more reluctant to challenge the government's actions.

I disagree with this argument. If the govt. reduced the pay of all judges (or applied a tax or levy) there would be no favouritism. Favouritism can be accomplished by (a) having the power to appoint judges who support you, and then to promote them and give them preferential pay rises. Conversely, (b) the power to sack, demote, or reduce the pay of dissenting judges.

As a further proof, why is it never a problem when all judges get a pay rise? The govt. has always had this power, and has frequently exercised it. Nobody ever complained that all the judges were being bribed or coerced by the govt.

VinLieger wrote: »

So what if they are political appointees, they should still have complete independence from the government

See point (a) above.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you want to talk about the independence of the Judiciary being threatened - yes it is under threat. It is under threat every single day the higher courts sit and deliberate their decisions. Hanging over them are promotions within the Irish system, promotions to the European courts and within the European courts, renewable terms depending on a Government's satisfaction with their decisions.
THESE are the serious interferences with judicial independence.

Yes, I'm all for this debate. Bring it on.

Wildlife Actor

Judges Pay is the red herring. The elephant in the room is, was, and always will be judicial appointments. From what I hear, the common perception of people at the frontline is:

(a) that judicial appointments have almost always been made by reference to political affiliation
(b) that some very good judges were appointed by FF, because they were in power so long that they ran out of their cronies and had to appoint on merit!
(c) that legal representation for the state is similarly political
(d) that both in the area of appointments and state legal representation, the current government are worse than FF ever were
(e) that nothing will ever be done about either of these because the power to change is in the hands of the abusers.

Incidentally a good judge, the likes of Peter Kelly who I've seen in action, saves the state and everybody else (except lawyers who make fees out of it), many multiples of his salary by being conscientious and working hard to get the right (he spends his weekend reading the papers in all the cases he deals with in the commercial court every monday, up to 40 cases). A bad judge - by getting decisions wrong, by making cases go on for longer and so on - costs the state and everybody else multiples of his salary.

At least we don't have the dysfunctional american political and legal culture, which is shocking.

PRAF

Love nor Money wrote: »

Judges Pay is the red herring. The elephant in the room is, was, and always will be judicial appointments. From what I hear, the common perception of people at the frontline is:

(a) that judicial appointments have almost always been made by reference to political affiliation
(b) that some very good judges were appointed by FF, because they were in power so long that they ran out of their cronies and had to appoint on merit!
(c) that legal representation for the state is similarly political
(d) that both in the area of appointments and state legal representation, the current government are worse than FF ever were
(e) that nothing will ever be done about either of these because the power to change is in the hands of the abusers.

Incidentally a good judge, the likes of Peter Kelly who I've seen in action, saves the state and everybody else (except lawyers who make fees out of it), many multiples of his salary by being conscientious and working hard to get the right (he spends his weekend reading the papers in all the cases he deals with in the commercial court every monday, up to 40 cases). A bad judge - by getting decisions wrong, by making cases go on for longer and so on - costs the state and everybody else multiples of his salary.

At least we don't have the dysfunctional american political and legal culture, which is shocking.

I disagree that judges pay is a red herring. Top level public sector pay is a key issue for lots of people in this country. I am far from being a socialist but I do think it is difficult for the general public to suffer pay cuts, loss of employment, etc. when a cosseted elite are raking it in at the top with supernormal pay (by European norms), gold plated pensions, etc.

I fully agree that there are much more important issues to discuss around the justice system. Judicial appointments is a key one. The efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system is another.

At least Shatter is now trying to reform things. For years, these issues have been ignored and put on the long finger by politicians and members of the judiciary alike.

Unfortunately, while Shatter is doing the right thing in terms of pursuing a reform agenda, his aloofness and somewhat arrogant style have lead to a complete breakdown in communications with lots of different groups. He badly needs a PR makeover!

Curly Judge

PRAF wrote: »

I disagree that judges pay is a red herring. Top level public sector pay is a key issue for lots of people in this country. I am far from being a socialist but I do think it is difficult for the general public to suffer pay cuts, loss of employment, etc. when a cosseted elite are raking it in at the top with supernormal pay (by European norms), gold plated pensions, etc.

I fully agree that there are much more important issues to discuss around the justice system. Judicial appointments is a key one. The efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system is another.

At least Shatter is now trying to reform things. For years, these issues have been ignored and put on the long finger by politicians and members of the judiciary alike.

Unfortunately, while Shatter is doing the right thing in terms of pursuing a reform agenda, his aloofness and somewhat arrogant style have lead to a complete breakdown in communications with lots of different groups. He badly needs a PR makeover!

If Shatter was Minister for Tourism I'd have to agree with you.
But I would have thought that in amongst snooty judges and arrogant barristers he would blend in seamlessly?

VinLieger

Curly Judge wrote: »

If Shatter was Minister for Tourism I'd have to agree with you.
But I would have thought that in amongst snooty judges and arrogant barristers he would blend in seamlessly?

No he will forever have a massive chip on his shoulder towards barristers due to not being made a senior counsel http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shatter-fought-with-former-ag-in-attempt-to-get-barrister-status-26797871.html

oscarBravo

PRAF wrote: »

It was put to the people and after a long period of reasoned debate, the people decided that it was a fair and reasonable change to the constitution.

That sounds like a succinct description of not a single one of the referendum campaigns I can remember since Maastricht.

PRAF

VinLieger wrote: »

No he will forever have a massive chip on his shoulder towards barristers due to not being made a senior counsel http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shatter-fought-with-former-ag-in-attempt-to-get-barrister-status-26797871.html

One man's "chip on the shoulder" is another man's "righteous cause".

Some of the practices of the legal profession (as well as the terminology that goes with it - "taking silk", "deviling", etc) are an embarrassment and in dire need of reform.

I congratulate Shatter for taking this task on. The more principled politicians we have the better. We've had far too many procrastinators and prognosticaors. We need action not death by a thousand reports as has happened far too often in the past.

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

No he will forever have a massive chip on his shoulder towards barristers due to not being made a senior counsel http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shatter-fought-with-former-ag-in-attempt-to-get-barrister-status-26797871.html

He wasn't applying to act as SC himself, he wanted to be able to instruct JCs that his firm had hired.

And his claim at that time appears to have been one that, if not based on regulations, was based on common sense. I think that's the sort of common sense he is bringing to the legal professions now with various reforms. Even if there it is being kicked in with grudge boots.

PRAF

oscarBravo wrote: »

That sounds like a succinct description of not a single one of the referendum campaigns I can remember since Maastricht.

Disagree. We have the Referendum Commission in place to ensure that comprehensive information is available to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals. If you have any interest in voting, there really is no excuse for not being informed.

In addition, everytime you read a newspaper or turn on the tv, you are inundated with debates both for and against referenda. Notably we had an intervention from former AGs which had a decisive impact in terms of the Irish people choosing not to overturn the Abbeylara judgement.

I'm not saying there is plenty of uninformed debate (aka pub talk / taxi driver talk). Of course there is. However, generally the people who choose to vote have done their research and at least listened to some reasoned debate.

oscarBravo

PRAF wrote: »

However, generally the people who choose to vote have done their research...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

PRAF

oscarBravo wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Oops, should have been clearer:

generally the people who choose to vote in referenda have done some basic research

I accept that local, national, and european elections have a large percentage of people who vote based on parish pump politics, narrow self interest, and a sense of loyalty / tradition.

In my experience, people who make the effort to vote in referenda are different. They have educated themselves about the issues to some reasonable extent and have at least engaged in some debate on the matter with friends, family, colleagues, etc.

The alternative view (that most people decide which way to vote based on blind faith, random selection, or based on blatant misinformation) is just too depressing for me to even consider! Certainly I hope that those who felt that every referendum since Maasstrict was really about creating a european super army, mass conscription, freely available abortion for all and sundry, etc were in the minority.

Wildlife Actor

PRAF wrote: »

I disagree that judges pay is a red herring. Top level public sector pay is a key issue for lots of people in this country. I am far from being a socialist but I do think it is difficult for the general public to suffer pay cuts, loss of employment, etc. when a cosseted elite are raking it in at the top with supernormal pay (by European norms), gold plated pensions, etc.

I fully agree that there are much more important issues to discuss around the justice system. Judicial appointments is a key one. The efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system is another.

At least Shatter is now trying to reform things. For years, these issues have been ignored and put on the long finger by politicians and members of the judiciary alike.

Unfortunately, while Shatter is doing the right thing in terms of pursuing a reform agenda, his aloofness and somewhat arrogant style have lead to a complete breakdown in communications with lots of different groups. He badly needs a PR makeover!

Judges' performances are "out there". Anybody can go into a courtroom and see how good or bad they are. It's clear who are good judges and who are bad judges; perhaps not to everyone, but certainly to lawyers and (if you want an independent view) to academics. The good judges are worth more than their salary. If they get there on merit (the big problem as I see it) then it is worth paying more to get the best.

I know that the view that the view that performance/ability matches pay has been discredited in many instances. But that only holds true in cases where the performance is behind closed doors or where the pay level is not the result of being the best but grinding your way to the top by seniority. The job of a judge is different, and it is clear that, bad as the system is now, where you get a mix of good and bad, reducing or holding the threat of reduced salaries will - like it or not - mean more bad judges and fewer good ones who will stay in the private sector. The economic cost to society is far greater than any savings.

It may or may not be true that the vocation is more important than the money, so that salary is not a significant factor. Whether that is true or not is immaterial. One way or another, the significance of salaries is dwarfed by the significance of ensuring that the best people are in the jobs.

But Shatter won't touch that because it deprives him of the opportunity to give or return favours. What's his legal services bill about? Does it make lawyers cheaper? I haven't read it but all I do know (from Boards.ie, source of all the best news!) is that his pet project of being a Senior Counsel while a Solicitor is top of the agenda. Nothing about tendering for state contracts? Nope.

Zubeneschamali

Love nor Money wrote: »

Does it make lawyers cheaper? I haven't read it but all I do know (from Boards.ie, source of all the best news!) is that his pet project of being a Senior Counsel while a Solicitor is top of the agenda.

Allowing solicitors to instruct Junior Counsel cuts out the Senior Counsel. SCs charge maybe €5000 a day.

PRAF

Love nor Money wrote: »

Judges' performances are "out there". Anybody can go into a courtroom and see how good or bad they are. It's clear who are good judges and who are bad judges; perhaps not to everyone, but certainly to lawyers and (if you want an independent view) to academics. The good judges are worth more than their salary. If they get there on merit (the big problem as I see it) then it is worth paying more to get the best.

I know that the view that the view that performance/ability matches pay has been discredited in many instances. But that only holds true in cases where the performance is behind closed doors or where the pay level is not the result of being the best but grinding your way to the top by seniority. The job of a judge is different, and it is clear that, bad as the system is now, where you get a mix of good and bad, reducing or holding the threat of reduced salaries will - like it or not - mean more bad judges and fewer good ones who will stay in the private sector. The economic cost to society is far greater than any savings.

It may or may not be true that the vocation is more important than the money, so that salary is not a significant factor. Whether that is true or not is immaterial. One way or another, the significance of salaries is dwarfed by the significance of ensuring that the best people are in the jobs.

But Shatter won't touch that because it deprives him of the opportunity to give or return favours. What's his legal services bill about? Does it make lawyers cheaper? I haven't read it but all I do know (from Boards.ie, source of all the best news!) is that his pet project of being a Senior Counsel while a Solicitor is top of the agenda. Nothing about tendering for state contracts? Nope.

To be honest, I was being slightly tongue in cheek in my post re judges pay needing to be benchmarked and linked to the average industrial wage. However, there is research to say that social problems are caused to a large extent to social inequality. Paying judges 6 or 7 times the average industrial wage (and many times more than that when you consider pensions) is surely counterproductive from a social justice perspective.

However, I hadn't really considered the performance of judges and it is an interesting take on it. I would be interested in knowning how you would propose measuring the performance of judges? Measuring efficiency should be relatively easy but how do you measure the quality of their decision making.

I'm presuming that the performance of judges is more easily measurable in the commercial courts rather than in criminal courts, family law, civil courts, etc?

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

The good judges are worth more than their salary.

Really? To be clear, are you saying it would be a pity, unfortunate, inappropriate (or any similar adjective you'd care to use) that a High Court Judge should be asked to live on less than €243,000 per annum?

Are you suggesting that €187,000 is inadequate for a good High Court Judge?

Because apart from pointing out that black is black and white is white and that there are good judges and bad judges, it's not clear what else to possibly take from the above statement.

reducing or holding the threat of reduced salaries will - like it or not - mean more bad judges and fewer good ones who will stay in the private sector.

We don't necessarily want the most successful practicing barristers or solicitors to join the bench. A Barrister who attracts tens of thousands of Euro for legal opinions is not necessarily going to be the best Judge.

The economic cost to society is far greater than any savings.

Have you worked this out or something?

Where are you getting this?

Wildlife Actor

PRAF wrote: »

To be honest, I was being slightly tongue in cheek in my post re judges pay needing to be benchmarked and linked to the average industrial wage. However, there is research to say that social problems are caused to a large extent to social inequality. Paying judges 6 or 7 times the average industrial wage (and many times more than that when you consider pensions) is surely counterproductive from a social justice perspective.

However, I hadn't really considered the performance of judges and it is an interesting take on it. I would be interested in knowning how you would propose measuring the performance of judges? Measuring efficiency should be relatively easy but how do you measure the quality of their decision making.

I'm presuming that the performance of judges is more easily measurable in the commercial courts rather than in criminal courts, family law, civil courts, etc?

The thing is, once they're in, they're in, so you're kind of stuck with them (unless you want to give up the whole judicial independence thing - bad idea). It's at appointment stage that you need to vet them. Obviously, there is some vetting, as it is, and most are competent, some are excellent. But it's about the appointment method. I would suggest a committee that's not dominated by one group or another: say 1/3 control to each of (a) existing judges, (b) law society/bar council (c) members of the public. Make lobbying an offence. Require the applicants to write a judgement, set out the cases they were involved in and so on. Even have a system where they make themselves available to do arbitrations free and let the parties give their views on how it was handled (before the decision is made so as to limit the sour grapes effect!).

Back to pay: I understand the point about unequal pay and how mere inequality can itself be a source of discontent. But taking that to the nth degree means communism where nobody is incentivised to make an effort. Isn't that a real problem in the civil service as it is. Mike says "why the hell should I bother when Jimmy beside me is getting the same for doing bu99er all": it's demoralising to be in that situation and it's as depressing to see people get equal pay for unequal work as unequal pay for equal work.

Wildlife Actor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Allowing solicitors to instruct Junior Counsel cuts out the Senior Counsel. SCs charge maybe €5000 a day.

Senior Counsels can appear in court without Junior Counsels, and vice versa. Solicitors can appear without any barristers. Shatter just likes the idea of thinking he's better than a barrister, and having a barrister be "his junior counsel". All about ego.

Wildlife Actor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Really? To be clear, are you saying it would be a pity, unfortunate, inappropriate (or any similar adjective you'd care to use) that a High Court Judge should be asked to live on less than €243,000 per annum?

Are you suggesting that €187,000 is inadequate for a good High Court Judge?

No, I'm saying that what the judges get paid is - apart from optics (which I appreciate for some are more important than reality) - a drop in the ocean of what they save litigants if they are good or costs litigants if they're bad.

Because apart from pointing out that black is black and white is white and that there are good judges and bad judges, it's not clear what else to possibly take from the above statement.

The point (go back to the very first line in my first post) is that pay is a red herring: it's hypocritical and false to say you are reforming when you're not touching appointments. The money saved is a drop in teh ocean and it is not really saved at all.

We don't necessarily want the most successful practicing barristers or solicitors to join the bench. A Barrister who attracts tens of thousands of Euro for legal opinions is not necessarily going to be the best Judge.

Not necessarily but most likely. What criteria would you propose?

Have you worked this out or something?

Where are you getting this?

Back of an envelope. Cost of an appeal to supreme court vs salary.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

No, I'm saying that what the judges get paid is - apart from optics (which I appreciate for some are more important than reality) - a drop in the ocean of what they save litigants if they are good or costs litigants if they're bad.

So it is just a statement of black being black, and white being white, and there being good Judges and there being bad Judges?

What is the actual relevance of the point that there are good Judges or bad Judges?

Is it to suggest that the post-levy salaries are worryingly low, at €183,000? What is it? Is it just a tangental comment? It must have a relevance to the thread, surely?

The point (go back to the very first line in my first post) is that pay is a red herring: it's hypocritical and false to say you are reforming when you're not touching appointments.

It is a red herring to say that altering judicial pay is a meaningful compromise to the independence of the Judiciary.

However, it is not a red herring to say that instigating a methodology of reducing Judicial pay in line with other constitutional office holders is 'reform'. Clearly, it may not change the Irish debt dynamics. But just as clearly, since there was heretofore a constitutional bar on such an adjustment, it is, objectively, a 'reform'.

Wildlife Actor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So it is just a statement of black being black, and white being white, and there being good Judges and there being bad Judges?

What is the actual relevance of the point that there are good Judges or bad Judges?

Is it to suggest that the post-levy salaries are worryingly low, at €183,000? What is it? Is it just a tangental comment? It must have a relevance to the thread, surely?

It is a red herring to say that altering judicial pay is a meaningful compromise to the independence of the Judiciary.

However, it is not a red herring to say that instigating a methodology of reducing Judicial pay in line with other constitutional office holders is 'reform'. Clearly, it may not change the Irish debt dynamics. But just as clearly, since there was heretofore a constitutional bar on such an adjustment, it is, objectively, a 'reform'.

I really don't understand any of the questions/statements you've made. I appreciate that one particular view of things is that equal pay generates equal work and that everybody's work is worth the same or similar. I hold a different view.

To your last comment, which I do understand, I would say: I suppose I should have said "worthwhile reform." Incurring the cost of a referendum that costs more than it saves is not worthwhile reform. It is cynical optics. Worthwhile reform would be a system of proper independent meritocratic appointments.

Cody Pomeray

Love nor Money wrote: »

I really don't understand any of the questions/statements you've made. I appreciate that one particular view of things is that equal pay generates equal work and that everybody's work is worth the same or similar. I hold a different view.

Put it this way. In your opinion, does €183,000 (the post-levy annual rate of pay) fail to attract adequately discerning, astute, and learned judges to the High Court, for example?

To your last comment, which I do understand, I would say: I suppose I should have said "worthwhile reform." Incurring the cost of a referendum that costs more than it saves is not worthwhile reform. It is cynical optics. Worthwhile reform would be a system of proper independent meritocratic appointments.

The value of the reform is ultimately a decision of the Oireachtas and the public in the case of the 29th amendment. I'm sorry that you disagree, but the value you place on this reform is obviously not the same as the value the electorate and the Oireachtas placed on it.

I agree that appointments need an overhaul, as do renewal of terms in the case of European appointments.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Allowing solicitors to instruct Junior Counsel cuts out the Senior Counsel. SCs charge maybe €5000 a day.

This is exactly the sort of "demarcation" that would be frowned upon if we were talking about a trade union. These kind of artificial lines of demarcation always cost the public more in the end.

In the US and on The Continent a lawyer is a lawyer; there is no solicitor/barrister demarcation.
In Germany, successful law students do a 2 year apprenticeship, and then sit State exams. Those who get the best results can go on to further training to become judges. The others become lawyers. In that system, the appointment of judges is based on merit. Membership of a political party would be seen as a possible breach of judicial independence, whereas here it would be an essential prerequisite for selection by your political patron. Yes, I am aware that their legal system is inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial, but the prime requirements of the job are much the same; competence and independence.

Kosseegan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Allowing solicitors to instruct Junior Counsel cuts out the Senior Counsel. SCs charge maybe €5000 a day.

Solicitors can and do instruct Junior Counsel and do not instruct a Senior Counsel in some cases.

What Shatter wanted to do was instruct a Junior Counsel and act as lead advocate himself which is not allowed by the Bar Council rules.
Shatter is under no obligation to allow the judges to use the toilets in his house. It is his water, hot water, towel and soap and he can do waht he likes with them. If it means judges having to wander down the street, that is their problem

PRAF

Kosseegan wrote: »

What Shatter wanted to do was instruct a Junior Counsel and act as lead advocate himself which is not allowed by the Bar Council rules.

Seems to me that what he was asking to do is what should be allowed. Isn't that what already happens in the US for example? Isn't that what the Competition Authority recommended be allow to happen.

The fact that the Bar Council does not allow it speaks more of the self serving nature of their profession than it does of a perception of Shatter going too far in his reform agenda

Kosseegan

PRAF wrote: »

Seems to me that what he was asking to do is what should be allowed. Isn't that what already happens in the US for example? Isn't that what the Competition Authority recommended be allow to happen.

It doesn't happen in the US. The Bar Councilregulates barristers conduct in Court. It does not regulate solicitors. If a solicitor acting as lead advocate did something unethical the junior Counsel would be tarred with the same brush. The Irish system is of an independent Bar. A barrister might be required to tell his client that he should fire his solicitor.

PRAF wrote: »

The fact that the Bar Council does not allow it speaks more of the self serving nature of their profession than it does of a perception of Shatter going too far in his reform agenda

FreudianSlippers

PRAF wrote: »

One man's "chip on the shoulder" is another man's "righteous cause".

Some of the practices of the legal profession (as well as the terminology that goes with it - "taking silk", "deviling", etc) are an embarrassment and in dire need of reform.

I congratulate Shatter for taking this task on. The more principled politicians we have the better. We've had far too many procrastinators and prognosticaors. We need action not death by a thousand reports as has happened far too often in the past.

So your issue is with terminology? That's as much of an irrelevant tangent as the wigs and gowns argument. Seems to work fine in the UK.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

This is exactly the sort of "demarcation" that would be frowned upon if we were talking about a trade union. These kind of artificial lines of demarcation always cost the public more in the end.

In the US and on The Continent a lawyer is a lawyer; there is no solicitor/barrister demarcation.
In Germany, successful law students do a 2 year apprenticeship, and then sit State exams. Those who get the best results can go on to further training to become judges. The others become lawyers. In that system, the appointment of judges is based on merit. Membership of a political party would be seen as a possible breach of judicial independence, whereas here it would be an essential prerequisite for selection by your political patron. Yes, I am aware that their legal system is inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial, but the prime requirements of the job are much the same; competence and independence.

If you feel there is no 'demarcation' in the is and there is fee uniformity you're kidding yourself. Plus, lawyers in the US charge their clients much more money which they are often paid up front, have a method of getting money off clients that don't pay through the courts and make a lot more money in yearly income - all aspects missing from Irish lawyers.

The problem isn't the solicitor barrister division. They have 'trial attorneys' in the US. They also have the professions divided in the UK, Canada and (I believe) Australia. They seem to be ok.

FreudianSlippers

Kosseegan wrote: »

Solicitors can and do instruct Junior Counsel and do not instruct a Senior Counsel in some cases.

What Shatter wanted to do was instruct a Junior Counsel and act as lead advocate himself which is not allowed by the Bar Council rules.
Shatter is under no obligation to allow the judges to use the toilets in his house. It is his water, hot water, towel and soap and he can do waht he likes with them. If it means judges having to wander down the street, that is their problem

It's prohibited by the laws that govern both professions afaik

FreudianSlippers

PRAF wrote: »

Seems to me that what he was asking to do is what should be allowed. Isn't that what already happens in the US for example? Isn't that what the Competition Authority recommended be allow to happen.

The fact that the Bar Council does not allow it speaks more of the self serving nature of their profession than it does of a perception of Shatter going too far in his reform agenda

No, generally in the US you hire a firm and are assigned lawyers to deal with your case. Smaller cases are usually dealt with by that lawyer (and I agree that this country needs multidisciplinary practices so that barristers can work in solicitors firms and appear in mid-size matters 'uninstructed') but in bigger trials, an additional trial lawyer (or team of them) is brought in.

Law is much more expensive to the client in the us.

I also ask how fees in private business can be "regulated" as seems to be proposed by you and some others. The government had no place in telling solicitors or barristers what they can charge their clients for services.

nuac

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, generally in the US you hire a firm and are assigned lawyers to deal with your case. Smaller cases are usually dealt with by that lawyer (and I agree that this country needs multidisciplinary practices so that barristers can work in solicitors firms and appear in mid-size matters 'uninstructed') but in bigger trials, an additional trial lawyer (or team of them) is brought in.

Law is much more expensive to the client in the us.

I also ask how fees in private business can be "regulated" as seems to be proposed by you and some others. The government had no place in telling solicitors or barristers what they can charge their clients for services.

I believe an independent Bar is very important.

That way barristers, including eminent specialists, are available to any solicitor on the cab rank principle.

If we had multi disciplinary practices, the leading barristers would develope exclusive relationship with the larger firms. That would seriously limit the choices for the ordinary citizen

recedite

I fail to see how breaking down the barriers to solicitors in the courtroom would make legal services more expensive to the consumer, or limit choice in any way.
The option would still still be there to hire specialist trial lawyers (barristers) if the consumer wished to.

johnnyskeleton

recedite wrote: »

I fail to see how breaking down the barriers to solicitors in the courtroom would make legal services more expensive to the consumer, or limit choice in any way.
The option would still still be there to hire specialist trial lawyers (barristers) if the consumer wished to.

The big problem is that the vast majority of people don't or won't understand the issues. A solicitor can represent your case in any court in the land. You don't have to get a barrister if you don't want. I'm not sure that a firm of solicitors doing all the advocacy will work out cheaper.