Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Barristers crying about legal aid fees

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    downtheroad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581391#Comment_120581391

    A lifetime cap on free legal aid per person should be introduced. If you commit 100 crimes why should the state continue to fund your defense? And I'd happily reduce thay number to 3.

    If I commit a crime I'm not getting free legal aid. Only for Anto and the boys on the Liffey boardwalk.



  • Options
    #33
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,262 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120580593#Comment_120580593

    Well to start with a legal firm is not a barrister and that’s what this thread is about!



  • Options
    #34
    Everlong1
    Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581399#Comment_120581399

    Spot on. If we're all wrong about the majority of barristers coining it in from FLA then that's fine and I'm glad to hear it. My real problem is with career scumbags effectively being subsidised to commit crime, which is what the FLA scheme as it's currently constituted amounts to.



  • Options
    #35
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,509 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581399#Comment_120581399

    A lifetime cap on free legal aid per person should be introduced.

    How about for barristers too? Got millionaires on the take in the profession. If anything they should be doing pro bono work for tax breaks?



  • Options
    #36
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,262 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581204#Comment_120581204

    The bit that is not adding up is your understanding of the work needed to get to those 30 minutes in court. Let’s say you need two hours to go through the documents, check the facts etc., then you are going to have to met with your client so add another hour. So that’s three hours of your time plus the 30 mins in court, but before you get any of the 25 Euros you are going to have to pay for the admin for your practice, the professional insurance, the office accommodation and so on. In the end you’ll get perhaps 5 Euro an hour!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,262 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581279#Comment_120581279

    Absolutely nonsense. Insurance companies don’t make money from insurance. Eventually an insurance company will payout every cent they collect in premiums, in fact a well run company is one the pays out less than about 110% of the premiums. Low interest rates have decimated insurance companies all across the first world because that was traditionally where the made their profits and bridged the gap between payouts and premiums.



  • Options
    #38
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581440#Comment_120581440

    Typically, high-volume FLA cases in the district court are the low-end of the profession, and the barristers subsisting on that type of work aren't exactly "coining it" as you put it. As another poster alluded to, the juice isn't exactly worth the squeeze.

    FLA is an essential part of the justice system. Otherwise you'll have the state and prosecutors steamrollering low-income defendants (and not so low-income) on threadbare charges and any semblance of a balanced legal system goes out the window. Perhaps that's something you might think as desireable, but I've lived in countries where the justice system is a complete mirage, the trial process is pure theatre and a parody of justice. You might say well and good, but FLA is essential component in ensuring that justice is done.

    There's probably a few dozen high-profile Senior Counsel practicioners that make serious money in the way you describe. They're not slumming it in the FLA pool outside some district court in the midlands.



  • Options
    #39
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,494 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    So why are they not getting minimum wage for hours worked?



  • Options
    #40
    Everlong1
    Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581526#Comment_120581526

    I'm not saying that the FLA scheme is wrong in and of itself. I do understand the basic principle that everyone is entitled to decent representation and that the scheme provides a way to ensure that people from low incomes have that right. My problem is that the system as it currently operates, where career recidivist thugs can get free representation every single time they commit a crime, is enabling them to keep doing what they do...being career recidivist scumbags. How else do you explain someone with 150 plus convictions walking the streets? If there other factors behind that I'd love to hear about them and, more importatnly, what we can do to change the situation.

    I'm no idiot conspiracy theorist but I find it hard to look at the current situation and not come to the conclusion that the entire criminal justice system is weighted towards protecting the thug, with a few token nods towards the rights of the victims and the public such as allowing victim impact statements. And again, while I'm no loony lefty anti-free market Socialist Worker fantasist, it's also very hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that, just like our two tier health system and the current housing fiasco, there's an increasing number of utter vermin being allowed to walk free and stay on the streets, preying on decent people, because someone, somewhere, has a serious vested interest in seeing such a situation exist.



  • Options
    #41
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120580593#Comment_120580593

    Well I'd point out firstly there that you presumably paid that to a solicitor firm, not to a barrister. The conditions for solicitors in criminal law are better in that they are typically full time salaried employees and that comes with at least a good degree of certainty of getting paid a set amount.

    As to what your money goes to, like any other industry it goes to rent, utilities, salaries etc. A lot of firms rely on work like conveyancing just to keep the lights on. Yes, the equity partners in the firm will pocket the most, and there are some very high earning criminal law lawyers out here — but it's very much a select few. Most solicitors in criminal law (hell, even in commercial law) earn way, way less than society seems to believe they do.

    Most young people training in or studying Law these days (and for a long time now) understand well that you are not likely to make great money in criminal law. Those who do it will do it out of interest or passion for it. If you want to eventually make the kind of money that gets you a nice house on the Southside then it's the big commercial firms you want to be getting into, and even there you are seeing an exodus of young newly qualified solicitors to London where they can quite literally earn up to 2-3 times what they wil get in Dublin.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581391#Comment_120581391

    Oh the system is far from perfect — but barristers and solicitors do not write the laws, they don't control free legal aid, they don't set the amounts for it. Their job is to defend their client within the framework of the law and it's up to the State to build and drive that framework. The free legal aid system is not perfect, but at the very least it tries to ensure that access to legal representation when your liberty is at stake is not the sole reserve of the businessman with the 7 bedroom house in Monkstown.

    To the extent that the work of lawyers, who have a fiduciary duty of care to their clients, seems to expose issues with how the system works for multiple offenders etc etc — then it's the State's job to fix that. Blaming lawyers for the systemic problems is as useful as blaming doctors and nurses for the state of the health system — ultimately responsibility lies with the government.



  • Options
    #43
    Quitelife
    Registered Users Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭Quitelife


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581277#Comment_120581277

    Some of the Biggest scumbags in the country , terrorising young and old are on the streets due to free legal aid solicitors trying every trick/yarn in the book to get them off. Those summbags could then go on to rob or kill peoples mothers or grandmothers!!

    How anyone could make excuses for their carry on clearly has zero morals and i and most other people would be ashamed to be related to one of these free legal aid solicitors!



  • Options
    #44
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,636 ✭✭✭Nermal


    Whenever an occupation collectively cribs about pay and benefits, ask the question: is there a shortage of applicants?

    If not, ignore and move on.



  • Options
    #45
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,775 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582012#Comment_120582012

    A barrister's job is not to prejudge their client. A barrister also can not choose their client.

    This is the equivalent of blaming doctors for doing everything they can to treat "scumbags" instead of letting them die.



  • Options
    #46
    Lionel Fusco
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Lionel Fusco


    It is very annoying for the average person when they see the wig stand up and come out with pathetic almost laughable excuses for little Johnny scumbag and his 40th suspended sentence and some of the stuff they come out with at rape trials is absolutely abhorrent BUT the alternative is worse if there is no FLA the state effectively gets to pick and choose who gets a defence and who doesn't. Justice becomes the preserve of the rich only. The rates for FLA are deliberately kept low so as too ensure the poor get a worse defence than the rich. The rates should be upped and upped considerably.



  • Options
    #47
    downtheroad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582085#Comment_120582085

    How about Johnny doesn't commit 40 crimes (and they're just the ones he got caught for). A simple policy of 1 free legal aid per citizen per year would be more than generous and not used by the overwhelming majority of the country. And those clowns at Irish Council for Civil Liberties couldn't cry unfair, because Johnny still has access to free legal aid for his first annual offence, after that he can get f**ked.

    I'd apply the same logic to free travel and free GP visits. A basic allowance for all, and after you exhaust your annual allowance you pay your way.

    Giving things for free is of no benefit to anybody.



  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    We should be trying to decrease the cost of FLA to the state, not increase it.

    I have no issue with Barristers getting a reasonable rate for the work they do, but we as a society should not be on the hook for the cost of repeat offenders or those found guilty of committing a crime.

    Options should be:

    You commit a crime plead guilty and take your punishment.

    You plead not guilty and you are found guilty of the crime the state pays upfront for the cost of legal representation but garnishes your pay or social welfare after to recover the costs. Repeat offenders have access to all social supports removed until they can show they are a contributing member of society.

    You plead not guilty and you are found not guilty the state covers the cost.



  • Options
    #49
    Quitelife
    Registered Users Posts: 1,168 ✭✭✭Quitelife


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582064#Comment_120582064

    But defending terrible individuals with blatant fibs and lies who go onto cause even further mayhem & Misery to others in their communities is unjustifiable



  • Options
    #50
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582127#Comment_120582127

    I'd apply the same logic to free travel and free GP visits. A basic allowance for all, and after you exhaust your annual allowance you pay your way.

    How may GP visits would you allow for someone with cancer?



  • Options
    #51
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582152#Comment_120582152

    Isn't proven that if you remove social supports crime goes up not down?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582012#Comment_120582012

    Yes, you are morally superior — that must be nice.

    Why don't you elaborate on your moral superiority and tell us all what you would do to fix the problem and tell us who has the ability and power to fix those problems by re-writing the laws on who gets legal representation and to what standard of care (hint: it's not the lawyers).



  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582254#Comment_120582254

    Its also proven that if there are no repercussions or financial penalties for committing crimes there are those that will rack up tens if not hundreds of offences.

    I'd agree that crime would probably increase if you reduced social supports for everybody across the board but I'm only taking removing the supports for those that are repeat offenders these are people that will commit crimes anyway so why give them hundreds of thousands out of the social pot over their lifetimes when they show contempt for society and its laws in general.



  • Options
    #54
    Everlong1
    Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582261#Comment_120582261

    I started this thread in the hope of generating some debate about the FLA and whether it's fit for purpose. There's been some good points made so far but it seems to have degenerated into a "bash the barristers" thread which isn't helpful. We do at least seem to have established that the FLA scheme isn't the pot of gold many Boardsies - and I include myself in this - seemed to think it was.

    Perhaps we need a new thread debating the FLA scheme itself and what can be done to reform it, along with the bigger issues of sentencing guidelines, prison spaces etc. I still haven't heard anyone explain how a scheme that effectively subsidises and incentivises career criminals is in society's interest. Not am I any the wiser as to how an individual can rack up 150 plus convictions and still be walking the streets.



  • Options
    #55
    Everlong1
    Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582343#Comment_120582343

    There's a bigger debate to be had there about the welfare state and how it enables dependency and has created an entitlement culture where people think they can just drop out of society and live on welfare. The days when people were brought up with a work ethic seem to have vanished in many cases. There's nothing like having to work for a living to put manners on people. If people have to hold down a job they're a lot more likely to behave responsibly and stay out of trouble if they know they're going to lose their job when they appear in the papers after a criminal conviction.



  • Options
    #56
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582359#Comment_120582359

    Here's the thing with "more prison spaces". People don't want to pay for that either when they hear how much it costs to build new prison facilities and the cost of a prison space for a year.

    That and the Irish Prison Service and governor of Mountjoy want the prison population capped because even they believe the way we imprison and why isn't working.

    Believe it or not, we actually imprison at higher rates than most of Western Europe (about the rate of the UK). Take a look at prisonstudies.org for the breakdown.

    We typically have less remand/pre-trial detainees than in continental Europe, but more people in prison following conviction. We are not half the "soft touch" that journal commenters want to believe.

    If you're trying to make the case that FLA somehow incentivisies criminal behaviour, I think you're in dreamland. The only thing FLA does is ensure that everyone in the dock gets a fair trial and representation. That's the bedrock of fair justice system whether you like it or don't like it.



  • Options
    #57
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582343#Comment_120582343

    But didn't we already cut monetary social supports for younger people?

    It seems you agree crime will rise, but at the same time want to cut supports.

    I think making society less safety is not a solution I'd be on board with.



  • Options
    #58
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582389#Comment_120582389

    "Welfare States" would have lower criminality statistically.

    Also Ireland is at full employment.



  • Options
    #59
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582359#Comment_120582359

    There's been some good points made so far but it seems to have degenerated into a "bash the barristers" thread which isn't helpful. 

    Well you did set the tone by accusing them of conspiracy. 🤷‍♂️

    Apparently barristers are not happy about the money they're getting for legal aid. This would seem to run counter to the belief, frequently expressed on Boards - and which I must say I find easy to believe - that one of the reasons why we have such a ludicrously lenient criminal justice system is because the legal profession is rolling in wonga from FLA and it's in their interests to keep even the most violent depraved scummers on the streets racking up convictions in the hundreds



  • Options
    #60
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    The Court of Justice of the EU and the ECHR have repeatedly reaffirmed that legal aid is an essential part of the "equality of arms" principle in criminal justice.

    If anyone is denied access to representation it is by definition an unfair trial and it puts the entire system in the dock.

    Journal.ie commentators need to reconcile themselves to this. Every EU country has instituted some sort of legal aid program, because they're obliged to hold-up standards.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    downtheroad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582240#Comment_120582240

    As many as required. Means tested. But cut out the dossers who are going to the GP weekly with the sniffles that are blocking up the system (and this definitely happens according to a GP friend of mine)



Advertisement