Sadly the author fails to clearly set out the facts regarding the threat to the bar’s independence or to the level of fees. Not a particularly good piece of forensic advocacy.
Quite. Has anyone actually proposed the corporate profit sharing model he presents as such a threat? Or, is that just a straw man argument that would be given short shrift if presented in court? Also, he says the dispute is not about money, but i suspect this would over quickly if the government increased its offer from 15% to nearer the 25% they have asked for.
Michael J
1 year ago
The criminal bar has an image problem on two fronts.
First, a lot of people wrongly think they earn bucket loads of cash just like corporate lawyers.
Second, given the laxity of what passes for justice in our criminal courts in recent times, barristers need to demonstrate that defending criminals remains a value to society.
Unfortunately, it is not work that creates a tremendous amount of public sympathy for the lawyers.
Their predilection for indulging in left-wing lawfare in areas like deportations of illegal immigrants or foreign criminals doesn’t exactly help their image either.
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago
Much public sympathy, I fear, has been forfeited by the self-promoting ‘human rights barristers’ who appear to be – and I think often are – predominantly left wing and sometimes seem to embrace with enthusiasm the cause of some pretty ghastly individuals. There is no logic in this – indeed it may be positively unfair to the profession – but public opinion is not always driven by logic or fairness.
Harry Child
1 year ago
This raises the question in my mind, is the legal profession in this country fit for purpose and when will MP’s stop passing ever increasing amounts of legislation that we the public have to endure. Blair’s 10 years is reported to have produce 28,700 or more bits of legislation and Parliament has not let up since. How the hell are the public to have a clue what we are being expected to know under the mantra ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ This is of course bread & butter for the lawyers the more convoluted the law the more money they make.
The adversarial nature of court proceedings is not the most efficient way of producing justice but more a way of allowing tricky barristers to confuse judgements.
Matt M
1 year ago
No government can capitulate to strikers. This is doubly true in times of inflation as it just opens the floodgates. All the barristers are doing – by allowing themselves to be associated with the RMT and with the Remainiac/Open-Borders Twitter set – is further blackening their reputation with the public.
The public are well aware that inflation is running at double digits, so why shouldn’t wages rise by at least the same rate?
Seeing as the benefits of multiple rounds of quantitative easing has predominantly gone to the wealthy with ridiculous rises in asset values such as housing and share buy backs, why is it the workers who should then carry the burden when inflation follows by accepting what is essentially a pay cut?
So rather than those at the top accepting less profit while inflation is running high, all the heavy lifting has to be done by those at the bottom by accepting pay cuts in real terms? You wonder why the young are becoming increasingly left wing, they’ve come of age after the credit crunch in which wages remained stagnant for over a decade despite large company profits, they’ve endured insecure employment through the gig economy while watching house prices and rents climb out of reach, and now they’re expected to work for less pay to bail out those that have made billions through QE
I’m fully aware what inflation is, and if your pay rise is lower than the rate of inflation then you’ve essentially received a pay cut. Why should the workers have to bear the brunt of inflation, when it is the wealthy asset holding class that has so benefited from most of things that has caused it in the recent past?
If you understand what inflation is then you’d understand that increasing the wages of the largest working demographic during a supply side contraction will only increase the inflation rate, making the issue worse. Since you don’t understand this, I think it’s fair to conclude you don’t know what it is.
The public are well aware that tens of billions of taxpayer’s money was paid out to support workers, industries and public utilities throughout the pandemic. Not to mention the ultra-easy monetary policy, restrictions on repossession etc.
Everyone will have to take a hit now that the tailwinds of those policies are being felt. My (private sector) team didn’t get inflation-busting pay increases this year. Why should public sector employees get them? Surely the government’s approach of protecting the very poorest is the best use of scarce resources.
No I mean protecting the very poorest – granny in the freezing flat, family man who gets laid off etc. The rest of us will have to take a hit. The alternative is the 70s death spiral. Luckily employment and economic activity is still strong. Hopefully inflation will drop before long and we avoid a recession.
So once inflation is under control, I suppose the workers will receive above inflation pay rises to allow their wages to catch up with what they were before? All that wealth will trickle down I’m sure
I’m afraid not.
We will have to take the hit for this spike in the same way that we got financial support through the lockdowns.
You can’t take the furlough and then demand a pay-rise 12 months later!
If public sector workers, like those of us in business, wish to make up the difference then we must look for ways to increase productivity.
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
This may not be a popular opinion but an independent bar is the best institution this country has. No I am not a barrister
Yes, but independent of what? No one is suggesting defence lawyers become an arm of government. They work for their clients even though their fees may be paid out of taxpayer funded legal aid funding. When they prosecute they are paid for by the Crown Prosecution Service. I think there are some fine distinctions being drawn here.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
That was an interesting read as I know nothing of these matters. Best lines, on many levels:
“Longeurs almost comical to the unfamiliar are commonplace”
Richard Hopkins
1 year ago
So barristers from the Criminal Bar Association have gone on strike – though conspicuously not their colleagues operating in the Family Court. I wonder why? Perhaps a windfall tax could be levied on Family Court barristers to help out their less generously paid colleagues in the Criminal Bar?
polidori redux
1 year ago
“We’re fighting for our independence, not money”Well maybe. My policy of always following the money has served me in good stead over the years.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
If Boris and his Government have their way, we will all be ‘ convicted’ via the Star Chamber of the internet and soshul meeja, and lives as a result will be worse than prison, and it cost The Government nothing… On a less satirical note, I cannot find words to express my horror of what Conservative governments have done to the legal system, to rights, and freedoms… as magistrate and Crown courts imprison people for utterly victimless ” crimes”, and always ‘ go easy’ on policemen, even those convicted of violence.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Nothing more the corfam shod, polyester clad mason ” slisters” would love more than the obliteration of The Bar,…. so long, of course, that it’s not ” The 13″th at some intra M25 ‘ gofe club’….Anyone who has had the misfortune to encounter this breed in their role as County Court and Divorce Court ‘ District Judges’ will know what I mean….
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Another article where criminal barristers fail to mention why the public is largely indifferent to their cause: the belief right or wrong that legal aid is largely for the benefit of career or habitual criminals.
jane baker
1 year ago
Well we all need a good laugh! There is a VERY GOOD REASON the words Criminal and Lawyer fit together so well.
You’ll find out when they present the bill.
That Hollywood story,its been rehashed over and over,the idealistic lawyer who believes in the justice of your cause so works for free to further truth and justice. Its a Hollywood movie. No real actual lawyer will so much as give you 3 words of advice for free,you gotta pay.
Why do you think they swarm around migrants and petty crime like flies round a hot t**d,its where the money is,no not directly from those people,from the grants,funds,fees and God knows what else they can apply for to get paid.
Sadly the author fails to clearly set out the facts regarding the threat to the bar’s independence or to the level of fees. Not a particularly good piece of forensic advocacy.
Quite. Has anyone actually proposed the corporate profit sharing model he presents as such a threat? Or, is that just a straw man argument that would be given short shrift if presented in court? Also, he says the dispute is not about money, but i suspect this would over quickly if the government increased its offer from 15% to nearer the 25% they have asked for.
The criminal bar has an image problem on two fronts.
First, a lot of people wrongly think they earn bucket loads of cash just like corporate lawyers.
Second, given the laxity of what passes for justice in our criminal courts in recent times, barristers need to demonstrate that defending criminals remains a value to society.
Unfortunately, it is not work that creates a tremendous amount of public sympathy for the lawyers.
Their predilection for indulging in left-wing lawfare in areas like deportations of illegal immigrants or foreign criminals doesn’t exactly help their image either.
Much public sympathy, I fear, has been forfeited by the self-promoting ‘human rights barristers’ who appear to be – and I think often are – predominantly left wing and sometimes seem to embrace with enthusiasm the cause of some pretty ghastly individuals. There is no logic in this – indeed it may be positively unfair to the profession – but public opinion is not always driven by logic or fairness.
This raises the question in my mind, is the legal profession in this country fit for purpose and when will MP’s stop passing ever increasing amounts of legislation that we the public have to endure. Blair’s 10 years is reported to have produce 28,700 or more bits of legislation and Parliament has not let up since. How the hell are the public to have a clue what we are being expected to know under the mantra ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ This is of course bread & butter for the lawyers the more convoluted the law the more money they make.
The adversarial nature of court proceedings is not the most efficient way of producing justice but more a way of allowing tricky barristers to confuse judgements.
No government can capitulate to strikers. This is doubly true in times of inflation as it just opens the floodgates. All the barristers are doing – by allowing themselves to be associated with the RMT and with the Remainiac/Open-Borders Twitter set – is further blackening their reputation with the public.
The public are well aware that inflation is running at double digits, so why shouldn’t wages rise by at least the same rate?
Seeing as the benefits of multiple rounds of quantitative easing has predominantly gone to the wealthy with ridiculous rises in asset values such as housing and share buy backs, why is it the workers who should then carry the burden when inflation follows by accepting what is essentially a pay cut?
Because matching pay to inflation during a supply side shortage is inflationary.
So rather than those at the top accepting less profit while inflation is running high, all the heavy lifting has to be done by those at the bottom by accepting pay cuts in real terms? You wonder why the young are becoming increasingly left wing, they’ve come of age after the credit crunch in which wages remained stagnant for over a decade despite large company profits, they’ve endured insecure employment through the gig economy while watching house prices and rents climb out of reach, and now they’re expected to work for less pay to bail out those that have made billions through QE
I don’t believe you actually understand what inflation is.
I’m fully aware what inflation is, and if your pay rise is lower than the rate of inflation then you’ve essentially received a pay cut. Why should the workers have to bear the brunt of inflation, when it is the wealthy asset holding class that has so benefited from most of things that has caused it in the recent past?
If you understand what inflation is then you’d understand that increasing the wages of the largest working demographic during a supply side contraction will only increase the inflation rate, making the issue worse. Since you don’t understand this, I think it’s fair to conclude you don’t know what it is.
The public are well aware that tens of billions of taxpayer’s money was paid out to support workers, industries and public utilities throughout the pandemic. Not to mention the ultra-easy monetary policy, restrictions on repossession etc.
Everyone will have to take a hit now that the tailwinds of those policies are being felt. My (private sector) team didn’t get inflation-busting pay increases this year. Why should public sector employees get them? Surely the government’s approach of protecting the very poorest is the best use of scarce resources.
So pay rises that don’t are less than inflation (pay cuts in other words) are your way of protecting the poorest?
No I mean protecting the very poorest – granny in the freezing flat, family man who gets laid off etc. The rest of us will have to take a hit. The alternative is the 70s death spiral. Luckily employment and economic activity is still strong. Hopefully inflation will drop before long and we avoid a recession.
So once inflation is under control, I suppose the workers will receive above inflation pay rises to allow their wages to catch up with what they were before? All that wealth will trickle down I’m sure
I’m afraid not.
We will have to take the hit for this spike in the same way that we got financial support through the lockdowns.
You can’t take the furlough and then demand a pay-rise 12 months later!
If public sector workers, like those of us in business, wish to make up the difference then we must look for ways to increase productivity.
This may not be a popular opinion but an independent bar is the best institution this country has. No I am not a barrister
Yes, but independent of what? No one is suggesting defence lawyers become an arm of government. They work for their clients even though their fees may be paid out of taxpayer funded legal aid funding. When they prosecute they are paid for by the Crown Prosecution Service. I think there are some fine distinctions being drawn here.
That was an interesting read as I know nothing of these matters. Best lines, on many levels:
“Longeurs almost comical to the unfamiliar are commonplace”
So barristers from the Criminal Bar Association have gone on strike – though conspicuously not their colleagues operating in the Family Court. I wonder why? Perhaps a windfall tax could be levied on Family Court barristers to help out their less generously paid colleagues in the Criminal Bar?
“We’re fighting for our independence, not money”Well maybe. My policy of always following the money has served me in good stead over the years.
If Boris and his Government have their way, we will all be ‘ convicted’ via the Star Chamber of the internet and soshul meeja, and lives as a result will be worse than prison, and it cost The Government nothing… On a less satirical note, I cannot find words to express my horror of what Conservative governments have done to the legal system, to rights, and freedoms… as magistrate and Crown courts imprison people for utterly victimless ” crimes”, and always ‘ go easy’ on policemen, even those convicted of violence.
Nothing more the corfam shod, polyester clad mason ” slisters” would love more than the obliteration of The Bar,…. so long, of course, that it’s not ” The 13″th at some intra M25 ‘ gofe club’….Anyone who has had the misfortune to encounter this breed in their role as County Court and Divorce Court ‘ District Judges’ will know what I mean….
Another article where criminal barristers fail to mention why the public is largely indifferent to their cause: the belief right or wrong that legal aid is largely for the benefit of career or habitual criminals.
Well we all need a good laugh! There is a VERY GOOD REASON the words Criminal and Lawyer fit together so well.
You’ll find out when they present the bill.
That Hollywood story,its been rehashed over and over,the idealistic lawyer who believes in the justice of your cause so works for free to further truth and justice. Its a Hollywood movie. No real actual lawyer will so much as give you 3 words of advice for free,you gotta pay.
Why do you think they swarm around migrants and petty crime like flies round a hot t**d,its where the money is,no not directly from those people,from the grants,funds,fees and God knows what else they can apply for to get paid.
You will enjoy this then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD6pnYGN0Gw
Oh dear! A downvote. Some lawyers just don’t have a sense of humour.
Ho hum