Barrister earnings

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barrister-emily-egan-earns-just-short-of-1m-from-state-1.3082790

These stories are usually about solicitors, e.g. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cost-of-criminal-legal-aid-up-38-5-last-year-1.1025074 with the newspapers failing to distinguish between fees paid to the firm and any income for the principal.

However, if barristers are self employed sole practitioners with some admin staff, is this a very well paid barrister or is there some other factor?

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barrister-emily-egan-earns-just-short-of-1m-from-state-1.3082790

These stories are usually about solicitors, e.g. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cost-of-criminal-legal-aid-up-38-5-last-year-1.1025074 with the newspapers failing to distinguish between fees paid to the firm and any income for the principal.

However, if barristers are self employed sole practitioners with some admin staff, is this a very well paid barrister or is there some other factor?

This is not a very well paid barrister. It is likely that there was very little non-legal aid work in his practise.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This is not a very well paid barrister. It is likely that there was very little non-legal aid work in his practise.

Her practice. There's a bit of a clue in the given name "Emily".

And the total payments to her were €994,535. Even assuming that she has no other income at all, and allowing for the fact that she has to pay rent on her office and may be employing secretarial/administrative/support staff, it looks to me as though she's had a pretty good year.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her practice. There's a bit of a clue in the given name "Emily".

And the total payments to her were €994,535. Even assuming that she has no other income at all, and allowing for the fact that she has to pay rent on her office and may be employing secretarial/administrative/support staff, it looks to me as though she's had a pretty good year.

I was referring to the criminal barrister on the other link.

hullaballoo

The second article in the OP is from eleven years ago. It seems that it might cause confusion as the first article about Ms Egan is from earlier today.

Samuel T. Cogley

Is it just behind a paywall for me?

One barrister, and High Court seems perfectly reasonable to me - I assume if her clients wanted someone cheaper they'd have gone that route. Presumably she's pretty good at what she does.

Mr. Incognito

She defends all of the State PI cases and she is an excellent Barrister

Peregrinus

I've no doubt she's excellent at what she does, and the fees that she is paid are commensurate with the value of the service that she delivers. And I don't doubt that she works extremely hard, for long hours.

The fact remains, though, that a barrister can only be in one court at a time, and there's, what, 200 sitting days a year, tops? Even assuming she's in court every single sitting day, and all her preparatory and advisory work is done at weekends and during the vacations, (which is not a very realistic assumption) a million euro in fees over as many cases as can be dealt with in 200 days plus the associated advisory and preparatory work is an extraordinarily high income.

Victor's OP doesn't ask whether she deserves the money she's getting. He asks whether there's any special factors that might explain it. Is she carrying expenses that most barristers don't carry? Are there significant outlays being routed through her that wouldn't normally be routed through a barrister? I can't see any obvious reason why this would be so, but the level of fees paid to her does seem extraordinarily high.

Samuel T. Cogley

I assume she doesn't need to be present for every sitting in every case being an SC and presumably working with several JC?

Peregrinus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I assume she doesn't need to be present for every sitting in every case being an SC and presumably working with several JC?

Yes, I think that's right. She could in fact have several cases at hearing at the one time, with each attended by its respective junior. But the fees paid to the juniors are not routed through her; the million euros is her fees, for services provided by her personally, and normally her only significant overheads would be her chambers rental and secretarial assistance (normally not full-time). It's possible that she retains (and pays) junior barristers to do research, etc, for her advisory work.

Samuel T. Cogley

I was musing that she would be paid X for consulting on a particular case even though she was not there personally for most of the hearings. I have to admit to not reading the article (paywall) so apologies if I missed that there were limited to a certain type in that article. Say 40 cases that year 24.5K fee for each. It doesn't seem beyond the pale to me, as a complete outsider, for a specialist professional even consulting only.

Now that said - I do have to wonder why the majority of PI cases, which with absolutely no experience whatsoever I assume come down to a he said, she said, he fell over this engineers reports - can't be left to a Junior even in the High Court?

antoinolachtnai

The cash flow of the barrister is a strange thing. Cases take a long time to come to an end, and that's generally when you get paid.

So it might not be as good as it looks. You really need to look at the pattern over a decade.

That said, it is still good.

One major contributor to High fees is that there is no structured career path for barristers, as there is for any other profession or trade.

This is inevitably going to lead to talent shortages and 'stars' being in great demand.

Victor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Now that said - I do have to wonder why the majority of PI cases, which with absolutely no experience whatsoever I assume come down to a he said, she said, he fell over this engineers reports - can't be left to a Junior even in the High Court?

Because some personal injury cases are now in the region of €12 million.

PI = Professional Indemnity to many people, not Personal Injury.

Mr. Incognito

Look it- we all see these stories and think that they are creaming it but the vast amount of Barristers are broke.

Even with the huge earners the average is very low which means a large proporation are earnging exactly zero.

Emily is 23 years at the Bar.

antoinolachtnai

A chambers system would give senior barristers an incentive to build up and train a staff of skilled more junior barristers. As the system is today, there is no incentive to do such a thing. So there are a few mega-earners and a large number of what we might call the 'impecunious'.

hullaballoo

A couple of points.

It would be better to reserve comment until you have had an opportunity to read the article. Ms Egan is a medical negligence practitioner - in fact, for many people, she is the medical negligence practitioner. These cases are not just straight-up trip and falls or anything like that. They are complex and Emily Egan has spent her career positioning herself amongst the very best of practitioners in that field.


The fees are high. The best barristers charge high fees and because they are the best barristers, people are willing to pay their high fees. It's the exact same in any other field. The best plumbers also charge high fees and because they are the best, people are willing to pay their high fees.

As others have pointed out, articles such as those in the OP paint a very specific picture that is entirely inaccurate and by far and away the vast majority of barristers earn very little. There are 2,500 barristers and enough work for at most 1,000. Normal market economics have come into effect and the fees chargeable by barristers in most cases are minuscule and would not represent minimum wage if it was divided by the hours put in. And with very few exceptions, people who become barristers do not earn enough to live on in their first 7-10 years. Emily Egan SC is making hay now but I can tell you, she will have gone through abject poverty along her way, which has been a long way now.

But the penury bit doesn't make headlines.

hullaballoo

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

A chambers system would give senior barristers an incentive to build up and train a staff of skilled more junior barristers. As the system is today, there is no incentive to do such a thing. So there are a few mega-earners and a large number of what we might call the 'impecunious'.

That's an interesting point. I won't comment too far but I would imagine that a chambers system is probably fairly imminent and there are probably already de facto chambers in operation.

Gravelly

As a person with no legal qualifications or insight, what I'm getting from this thread is that barristers put farmers in the ha'penny place when it comes to the poor mouth!

"Ah but a million euros is nothing, sure didn't she have to read a brief and show up in court and everything"

hullaballoo

Hmm, you should probably read the thread again in that case.

No one on the planet thinks a million euro is nothing.

Gravelly

hullaballoo wrote: »

Hmm, you should probably read the thread again in that case.

No one on the planet thinks a million euro is nothing.

I was exageratting for effect obviously (you guys don't have a great sense of humour either, do you?) but the below is the type of farmery, poor mouth stuff I meant (remember this is in relation to yearly earnings of a million euros, an amount unimaginable to most people):

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This is not a very well paid barrister.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

One barrister, and High Court seems perfectly reasonable to me - I assume if her clients wanted someone cheaper they'd have gone that route. Presumably she's pretty good at what she does.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The cash flow of the barrister is a strange thing. Cases take a long time to come to an end, and that's generally when you get paid.

So it might not be as good as it looks. You really need to look at the pattern over a decade.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Look it- we all see these stories and think that they are creaming it but the vast amount of Barristers are broke.

Samuel T. Cogley

Gravelly wrote: »

I was exageratting for effect obviously (you guys don't have a great sense of humour either, do you?) but the below is the type of farmery, poor mouth stuff I meant (remember this is in relation to yearly earnings of a million euros, an amount unimaginable to most people):

The thing is though it's not an unimaginable sum. It's not for many working in finance, it's not for some very senior doctors/surgeons, it's not for property developers, business consultants and even in academia, although it's not direct payments grants can be multi-million euro and involve a handful of people. Those handful of people will be salaried but also expensed - while not coming near to €1m - realistically neither is this barrister, that's gross income, essentially to a business.

It's probably not even that unimaginable to a top electrician or plumber tbh but granted they would have much larger overheads.

Gravelly

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The thing is though it's not an unimaginable sum. It's not for many working in finance, it's not for some very senior doctors/surgeons, it's not for property developers, business consultants and even in academia, although it's not direct payments grants can be multi-million euro and involve a handful of people. Those handful of people will be salaried but also expensed - while not coming near to €1m - realistically neither is this barrister, that's gross income, essentially to a business.

It's probably not even that unimaginable to a top electrician or plumber tbh but granted they would have much larger overheads.

The thing is, most of those (property developers, electricians, plumbers, business consultants etc.) would only earn this amount by building up a large business, employing quite a number of people.

I'm not begrudging barristers their earnings, far from it, the one time I had to use one, he was well worth what I paid him, I'm merely observing that there seems to be an almost unseemly rush to deny or obfuscate the level of earnings, to a point usually only seen by the farming class.

One wonders why?

Samuel T. Cogley

Gravelly wrote: »

The thing is, most of those (property developers, electricians, plumbers, business consultants etc.) would only earn this amount by building up a large business, employing quite a number of people.

Again yes and no. It's not a direct comparison. A top surgeon (probably not in Ireland) Property developer, consultant etc. could easily be hitting high six figure salaries. Others would be more turnover based, this case probably falls more towards the CEO end of pay.

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not begrudging barristers their earnings, far from it, the one time I had to use one, he was well worth what I paid him, I'm merely observing that there seems to be an almost unseemly rush to deny or obfuscate the level of earnings, to a point usually only seen by the farming class.

One wonders why?

It's fairly straight forward to be fair. Having had the chance to meet a fair few Barristers I'm sure it becomes quite grating that everyone assumes you're minted when actually you're struggling to put petrol in the car. It's much like Landlords, most make a small some from it, do it properly and keep their heads down. The popular image though is even if you own a one bed apartment in Finglas that you're bathing in champagne on the backs of your 'peasants'.

The vast majority of barristers are struggling and I'm not surprised a few, especially the ones who might engage frequently with social media, might get a bit pissed off with what they read from time to time.

antoinolachtnai

They'd be better off being upset with the top tier of the senior bar, who have deliberately created and maintained a structure which ensures high earnings for a few, and pretty crappy earnings for a couple of thousand others.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

They'd be better off being upset with the top tier of the senior bar, who have deliberately created and maintained a structure which ensures high earnings for a few, and pretty crappy earnings for a couple of thousand others.

Well that's one opinion. An alternative is that a working class lad with a bog standard degree and no contacts gets the same chance, such as it is, as many others. My understanding of getting in to Chambers in E&W is within the reach of very few.

Also as a punter who do you want? The best person at the Bar for your case or someone your solicitor's chosen chamber thinks will probably be grand?

The Bar has its problems but then it also reflects the free market.

antoinolachtnai

He gets the same chance if he or she happens to have enough capital to sustain himself or herself for five or ten years of intense competition. If he or she doesn't actually know any solicitors or anybody in the Courts Offices, I think he or she is going to have a very tough time.

It is going to be very hard to get into Chambers for sure. But the profession currently takes in a far greater number of trainee barristers than can realistically be expected to make a living at the job.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

He gets the same chance if he or she happens to have enough capital to sustain himself or herself for five or ten years of intense competition. If he or she doesn't actually know any solicitors or anybody in the Courts Offices, I think he or she is going to have a very tough time.

It is going to be very hard to get into Chambers for sure. But the profession currently takes in a far greater number of trainee barristers than can realistically be expected to make a living at the job.

But those people get excellent qualifications and experience. One can always work in a variety of roles as many do.

It would be a real shame IMHO to see the Irish bar degenerate into elitism.

antoinolachtnai

There are a small number of extremely successful practitioners and a large number who are earning very little.

It would appear to me that it has already degenerated into elitism.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are a small number of extremely successful practitioners and a large number who are earning very little.

It would appear to me that it has already degenerated into elitism.

That's not elitism, that's capitalism.

What you're suggesting would see a small number of Universities feeding the Bar engendering a certain culture. People frequently complain that Judges are out of touch, this would see that fear realised.

It's largely accepted that it's a meritocracy there - I'm not there so I'll happily be corrected. Granted one that requires a financial outlay - so do many other professions and it sucks but there you go. I would prefer that the lucky few that go to DIT and hail from Finglas be allowed to at least try through hard work and building contacts.

antoinolachtnai

It's not capitalism, it's the structure of the industry which is enforced by the people at the top. Capitalism would be allowing the practitioners to structure their practices as they see fit.

I suppose the Bar believes a lot of interesting things about itself. There is no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of these beliefs.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It's not capitalism, it's the structure of the industry which is enforced by the people at the top. Capitalism would be allowing the practitioners to structure their practices as they see fit.

I suppose the Bar believes a lot of interesting things about itself. There is no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of these beliefs.

Sounds like capitalism to me comrade! :pac:

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely issues. From an outsiders perspective I feel I'm pretty balanced in my views in regard to fees - however uniformed those opinions maybe. I think that reforms to the fee structure, as to encourage the use of more junior barristers where appropriate would be the way to go, rather than chambers which to me only compounds the issue. The increase in jurisdictional limits was a step in the right direction.

...And Justice

Is it true that there's more money being a criminal JC, than being an SC?. I know a lad that's creaming it, he's 25 years as JC.

Victor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sounds like capitalism to me comrade! :pac:

sounds like an feudal era oligopoly to the rest of us.

Samuel T. Cogley

Victor wrote: »

sounds like an feudal era oligopoly to the rest of us.

It must be a very different form of capitalism out your way. I've always understood it as the best product/service attracts the best price. How a chambers system will be any different is beyond me. Don't the top law firms currently change the top fees?

Samuel T. Cogley

...And Justice wrote: »

Is it true that there's more money being a criminal JC, than being an SC?. I know a lad that's creaming it, he's 25 years as JC.

Not entirely sure, but I have heard that the leap requires a rebuilding of ones practice. I assume that that rebuilding is not always 100% successful?

Peregrinus

...And Justice wrote: »

Is it true that there's more money being a criminal JC, than being an SC?. I know a lad that's creaming it, he's 25 years as JC.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not entirely sure, but I have heard that the leap requires a rebuilding of ones practice. I assume that that rebuilding is not always 100% successful?

Yep. Some JCs do very well indeed, and never seek to take silk because this would require them to reposition themselves in a way which might (at least) disrupt their earning stream. People may take silk not because they hope to earn more money but because they want to, e.g., do less work, but more interesting work, or as part of a longer-term strategy targetting an appointment as a judge. Or just for status.

hullaballoo

...And Justice wrote: »

Is it true that there's more money being a criminal JC, than being an SC?. I know a lad that's creaming it, he's 25 years as JC.

Just to avoid confusion on this point, a JC can find themselves paid better than some SCs but they would want to be exceptionally busy or doing work that is very well paid by its nature. Criminal work is not particularly well paid work but a very good living can be made by those who are busy.

SCs charge higher rates but might have less work, either by choice or as a result of having to "rebuild" their practice when they become SCs. It's like changing to a completely different job tbh and for many barristers, taking silk will never be an option for a variety of reasons. A very busy JC working mostly in the Circuit Court (particularly outside of Dublin) with a few High Court cases here and there would be mad to consider taking silk.

There are also Dublin practitioners who will never take silk as the type of work doesn't suit them.

Victor wrote: »

sounds like an feudal era oligopoly to the rest of us.

In what respects is it anything like an oligopoly?

antoinolachtnai

"a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers."

Which part is missing?

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

"a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers."

Which part is missing?

But doesn't that precisely describe a chambers system?

The solution is to fix the level of competition in the current system, not restrict it further.

antoinolachtnai

Not necessarily. Chambers are not something anybody would have to join. The current arrangement is that Chambers are absolutely forbidden.

The level of competition in the current system is already pretty well fixed.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Not necessarily. Chambers are not something anybody would have to join. The current arrangement is that Chambers are absolutely forbidden.

The level of competition in the current system is already pretty well fixed.

I'm sorry to say but I feel this is just going around in circles at this stage.

At the moment we have a situation where there is an abundance of people and not enough work. I don't see how reducing the number of people, especially one that restricts it in such a way as to deny vast demographics the choice to even try is helpful to competition.

I also question whether it's good for the justice system as a whole.

hullaballoo

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I know that there is a view that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst fatcat lawyers to something something.

But it's not the reality.

The market for barristers is relatively small. There is a limited amount of work and increasing the number of barristers will not increase the amount of work available to them. However, there have been large numbers of barristers qualifying in the past 20 years or more. As above, there are approximately 2,500 practising barristers. The market is totally saturated.

antoinolachtnai

I am looking at the Council membership at the moment. These are excellent people offering quality, value and service in their work. But they are not very diverse looking. I just don't see how a career at the bar is really accessible to someone without quite a lot of wealth behind them.

With such an abundance of talent at the bar, how come poor Emily, together with a very small band of colleagues, has to shoulder such a large proportion of the state med neg work?

Samuel T. Cogley

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. I know that there is a view that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst fatcat lawyers to something something.

But it's not the reality.

The market for barristers is relatively small. There is a limited amount of work and increasing the number of barristers will not increase the amount of work available to them. However, there have been large numbers of barristers qualifying in the past 20 years or more. As above, there are approximately 2,500 practising barristers. The market is totally saturated.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting it would create more work. I think the point of debate is that if someone wants to enter a saturated market that's their business they should then live or die on their own merits.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am looking at the Council membership at the moment. These are excellent people offering quality, value and service in their work. But they are not very diverse looking. I just don't see how a career at the bar is really accessible to someone without quite a lot of wealth behind them.

How does limiting diversity increase diversity? How does requiring an expensive education to even be considered in the first place assist with getting poorer people through the door?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

With such an abundance of talent at the bar, how come poor Emily, together with a very small band of colleagues, has to shoulder such a large proportion of the state med neg work?

How would 'Egan Chambers' change that?

antoinolachtnai

I am not suggesting reducing diversity. I am suggesting increasing it by removing the restrictions that currently exist on how barristers may carry out their business.

A more flexible structure would give barristers an incentive to train and invest in the next generation of barristers. As things stand they have none.

Samuel T. Cogley

@ Victor - if I'm taking this OT please say and I'll start a separate thread.

Samuel T. Cogley

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am not suggesting reducing diversity. I am suggesting increasing it by removing the restrictions that currently exist on how barristers may carry out their business.

Fair comment - however I think the removal of the restrictions, that have historically been there (and have been loosened) is not a great idea for reasons beyond the scope of an earning discussion.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

A more flexible structure would give barristers an incentive to train and invest in the next generation of barristers. As things stand they have none.

I tend to disagree there. As it stands a JC brings on his or her Devils and I assume (although I welcome correction here) a SC brings on talented JCs who one day become SCs and bring on their own JCs. Surely if there wasn't a self perpetuating stream of talent at the Bar it would have become apparent by now?

Claw Hammer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am not suggesting reducing diversity. I am suggesting increasing it by removing the restrictions that currently exist on how barristers may carry out their business.

A more flexible structure would give barristers an incentive to train and invest in the next generation of barristers. As things stand they have none.

The chambers system allows senior practitioners to limit the size of the current and next generation of barristers. Either the squeeze is applied at the doorway of the chambers or it is applied after call by economics.

hullaballoo

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am looking at the Council membership at the moment. These are excellent people offering quality, value and service in their work. But they are not very diverse looking. I just don't see how a career at the bar is really accessible to someone without quite a lot of wealth behind them.

With such an abundance of talent at the bar, how come poor Emily, together with a very small band of colleagues, has to shoulder such a large proportion of the state med neg work?

I might be taking you up incorrectly but are you looking at the constituent members of the Bar Council? That's the body that regulates the profession (somehow in tandem with the new quango - I say somehow because no one knows what the quango is supposed to be doing or actually doing!)

There is not yet a roll of barristers that's available to the public, but there is an approximate list of practitioners in that most of us are members of the law library and its membership is a matter of public record and can be found here: https://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/

As for the accessibility point, absolute pish to be frank. I come from a poor background and have self-funded my education and career to date. The era of barristers all coming from already made backgrounds is gone and although there are still relics of that time around, it simply isn't the case any longer.

Emily Egan SC has done what we all aspire to and grafted away in a particular niche area for long enough that she is now regarded as the best in her field and that's why she gets the lion's share.

The others who take home all the cheese are similarly highly regarded. That's why people are calling it a meritocracy. People work hard, become the best in their field and usually reap the rewards. Some fall flat along the way as the overheads are high and the droughts are long. Others leave because there are better paid and more secure desk jockey jobs out there.

hullaballoo

I am not sure what restrictions people are imagining are in place? Could someone please enumerate them so that we can deal with them rather than having a discussion in a vacuum.