A bit like the way people attack the public service yet they need doctors and nurses when ill, gardaí if attacked, teachers to educate their children, and lawyers and barristers if charged with not paying the household charge. :-)

A double whammy or What!

@RockyDennis.

Firstly the tax payers are not being ripped off by legal aid. Everyones entitled to legal representation. That’s the price of living in a free society. The fees paid are remarkably low given the work involved in defending people.

Requiring criminals to pay their own fees wouldn’t hurt the criminals it would hurt the young barristers/solicitors. Career Criminals WILL NOT pay. It’s that simple. If you represent them without legal aid you will be representing them for free. You would have to get cash up front which most won’t have.

As for the American system. The best and Bruges will end up earning huge money at top firms and charge fortunes for their services. Ordinary joe public will have no access as he cannot afford them.

The guys who can’t get into those firms will be forced into public defence, grossly underpaid and hugely underworked. The criminal defendants will get much poorer representation. As will innocent parties wrongly accused and anyone else for that matter.

The criminal legal aid budget represents fantastic value for money to the public. Considering the level of work involved in criminal trials and the money paid for it the public get great value for money out of it.

I also doubt that there is any evidence anywhere that legal teams attempt to adjourn cases intentionally in order to “cream it”. Furthermore judges adjourn cases. Legal teams can only ask judges to adjourn the cases. The judges don’t have to. If there’s a good reason then they’ll adjourn the case. If not it will go ahead.

@felix
For once I’ll have to disagree with you. Free legal aid is abused by some solicitors. Just check how many remand cases for statement orders on minor offences, or look for a hearing date and then pled guilty on the day.
Legal aid solicitors should get paid by the day in court not by the client. So if they represent 1 or 20 people it would be the same.
Sit in any busy court and a solicitor could get 10 to 15 new legal cases a day.

Sorry Cormac but that’s simply not realistic.

Requesting disclosure on any offence is appropriate practice whether the offence is minor or not. Unless the client tells you he wants to plead from the outset it’s only appropriate that you look for a statement from the Garcia outlining what allegedly happened. Or are solicitors/barristers supposed to defend the client at a hearing without any idea what the Gardai are alleging?

As for one day, one fee. For the most part that’s crazy. You’d force the majority of solicitors/barristers out of the profession all together. Then huge numbers wouldn’t get representation at all.

So a guy is in court for 4 and 6 public order. Basically he was drunk and stupid. And you think that it’s ok for a solicitor to look for a remand for a statement order and then look for a hearing date. That’s three days for this example plus prob a consultation.
Ok the one day/one fee example is prob a little simplistic but it needs to be reformed.

I think that that is perfectly if the client won’t plead guilty. Clients must be advised according to what is in their best interests. Most of the time what is in their best interest is seeking evidence of the offence. Regardless of the insignificance of it. If it tunes out that their is good reason to fight the case then seek a hearing date.

Judges should be willing to hear the case on the day – a further date shouldn’t be necessary. Unfortunately court lists do not always allow for that.

None of which is abusing the system or attempting to “cream off” the system. it’s looking after the clients interests.

Well Felix iv seen judges look for evidence on the first day and the solicitors fight for a remand date and judges look to have statements furnished and to put it to a hearing date and again the solicitor looking for ye extra date. Look their doing nothing illegal but money could easily be saved.

@ Cormac

Judges may well look for evidence on the first day. That does not mean the Gardai will have it ready. Even when they do most solicitors/barristers will take it and ask for another date because they need time to advise the client. Why cant they advise the client then and there? usually because the solicitors have a lot of cases in that list and need more time to consider the position. Even were they to say “we want to fight and we’re ready to go on now” – the Judge would probably remand the case as he doesnt have time that day to hear it.

Judges should perhaps put matters straight in for hearing where they are minor, in order to avoid a multiplicity of dates – I have no difficulty with that.

Where I have a difficulty is the suggestion that most solicitors look for adjournments purely to make more money rather than because it is common practice in the interests of the client to do so. Trust me, I am no friend to criminal solicitors. Certainly not the ones in Dublin anyway. However the accusation that they constantly and deliberately seek adjournments to run up their earnings is fairly groundless.

Money could very easily be saved – no doubt about it. To suggest that lawyers are taking the cream in the District Court – particularly barristers for whom the pay is absolutely appalling – is wide of the mark.

@ Ciaro

Unfortunate Ciaro. I have asked you some very straightforward questions to justify your outright (and frankly uninformed) view that the “fees are obscene”.

These comments are part of the reason the country is in the state that it is in currently. An electorate that is reactionary and uninformed making groundless statements like this without any real idea what the actual facts of the situation are.

I must say Im curious to know why the country are so determined to hate the legal profession. The money they are paid is generated due largely to the wrongdoing of others. The Tribunals – the wrongdoing and corruption of our politicians and state bodies. The Commerical Court – the wrongdoing of the banks and financial insitutions as well as companies and private citizens. The Criminal Courts – the wrongdoing of citizens.

The fees paid to legal representatives are only done so as a result of the evils perpetrated by others. If the people abide by the law – most lawyers are out of work. Do not blame lawyers for representing wrongdoers, blame the wrongdoers for their actions in the first place.

Manfred I’m very sorry to tell you that that is completely and totally untrue. The senior members of the law library will be delighted with this decision as it protects their business entirely. Only the top level barristers will benefit from this however. The majority of the bar will be badly hurt by this decision – it is grossly unfair, contrary to what the new government indicated and a dreadful decision from the point of view of the public and from the point of view of the majority of the bar.

However, to suggest that barristers, all barristers, are “on the gravy train” is spectacularly unfair and frankly shows no appreciation for the service they provide.

Hi Felix.
I hear what you say but I see my involvement with many barristers from a different angle. FAMILY LAW.
Hence my derogatory comment re barristers.
What goes on in this department of litigation leaves me with a thought of condescension for barristers. (senior & junior ).

Then Felix…you explain to me why your draconian “IN CAMERA RULE” is still upheld in 2012?
And don’t tell me it is to protect the children involved, to protect the anonymity of families.
If it were possible for the public to peruse family law cases it would motivate litigants to pursue other means of settling a bitter dispute without lining the legal professions pocket?
Without going into details…take a good look at canadian legislation on this issue.
When the legal profession takes on a family law case the animosity begins.
I would prove this to you undisputedly if it were not for your convenient hideout called: THE IN CAMERA RULE

Oh dear. I’m sorry Manfred but that is exactly what I’m referring to. The lens of a family dispute is a highly highly biased and skewed one. It is entirely unsafe to judge the legal system and profession based on a case you personally were involved in relating to a family dispute.

Family disputes tend to be emotional, bitter and unpleasant affairs. It’s a sad place to find oneself when a families relationship has broken down to that point.

It’s simply not saw to judge the legal profession based on that.

I can assure you that the “in camera” rule does not exist to protect lawyers. That you think it does perfectly illustrates my point.

Dear Felix.
As you might deduct I have been involved in family law.
This was many years ago but the bitter after taste will linger forever.
If one wishes to ask my opinnion on family law…then I am unfortunately the one who qualifies to offer same after 4 1/2 years in the High Court.
In a nutshell: I realise that when a relationship goes pear-shaped we look to the law for justification of our beliefs.
WRONG!!
I can only say to anyone assuming this notion to be true to just stop in their tracks and re-evaluaute your circumstances.
Talk to the ones who have engaged the legal avenue and how they have faired out.
NOT just financially.
If children are involved then a judge has no right or qualifications to judge on any family.
To be continued…

I’m afraid you have just proven my point. You are bitter and angry as a result of your legal dispute. This happens all the time in family law because of the level of emotion and anger involved. Both parties believe they are in the right. Both sides are hurt and angry. Neither willing to give ground or concede or see the other sides point of view. One side eventually loses. And this is the prism through which you view the legal profession?

No one forces the public to hire lawyers in family disputes and it is an extremely common side effect of family disputes that the parties end hating their lawyers. But no one forced you into court or to the legal profession.

And to judge all of them based on that experience is foolish.

Manfred has a point tho Felix. Family law does not treat men fairly and we are only human and our experiences do affect us.

The law defines but a lot of lawyers’ time is spent looking for loopholes. Don’t know enough to get into a debate about it but just sayin…

Felix
I did not opt to engage the law to make decisions over a family that deserved more respect than that of barristers and judges in the inhospitable realm of your cushy kingdom.
This is a debate which you cannott possibly conquer even with the IN CAMERA RULE suppressing the plight and truth of children,fathers and mothers.
If it were made known…the truth about what goes on in Irish courts there would be a revolt amongst the public.
I have come across a multitude of cases that did not belong into the court system.
I have very sadly met people who have either committed suicide or attempted same over unjust rulings made by the courts.
REMOVE the in camera rule and family law as we know it would cease to exist.
I would like to assume that Felix is your pseudo name and that you are in the legal fraternity.
My name is genuine..
Ask your collegues and you will be enlightened by what still motivates me to this very day to not just discredit your profession but to remove it from Intimate and private matters.

@ReadaQuinn
You are quite right Reada. Family law does not treat men fairly. The treatment of fathers in this country is appalling. The law is not written by the Judiciary or the practitioners however. It is written by the politicians and government of the day. The legal system cannot be blamed for unfair treatment of men/fathers. It merely applies the law as decided by our elected officials.

As for so-called “loopholes”. The law is a technical world. Its that simple. These loopholes are merely flaws in the law that are applied to win cases for clients. Calling them loopholes imples that lawyers are sneaky, devious little weasels who are trying at all costs to circumvent justice to make money. That is simply not the case. Lawyers argue that the law as written must be interpreted in certain ways. The Courts decide whether or not they are right. Calling these technicalities of law “loopholes” suggests there is something underhand or dishonest going on. The very same “loopholes” (what are in reality technicalities of law which must be abided by) have convicted many criminals and resulted in just decisions. The public do not complain about those however – only the ones that result in decisions they do not like.

@Manfred
You did not opt to engage the law? Then why were you in Court?

Again – the “In Camera” rule is there to protect parties. Not persecute them.

The public would not revolt if they saw what occurred in family law courts. They did not revolt over Bertie Ahern, the health system, the banks, the church scandals or anything else. They would not revolt over what you and you alone perceive to be an injustice.

Im very sorry that your case did not result in the outcome that you hoped for. But you prove my point beautifully. You are willing to condemn the entire legal profession based on one case that you personally were involved in. No just your own representative, not even just family lawyers generally – the entire legal profession is corrupt and unfair because you personally do not like the result you got. This is an all too common result in family law matters unfortunately.

If I might suggest Manfred – if you want matters of law to improve then join the ranks of the legal profession and fight for a change. Defend and advise clients honestly and impartially and improve things yourself. You will never change anything by calling the entire legal profession corrupt and unfair.

Felix.
I read your comments with great interest and I admire the thoroughness of your replies and I agree their is not much to be gained by labeling the entire legal profession as unfair or corrupt.
As you have gathered from other discussions we have had most of my misgivings about the legal system is about the Judiciary. The nature of the appointment of, the political connections of, the age of, and the conservatism of these people make for bad law where it really matters – the final decision. The ‘in camera’ situation in family law – where the personal views of a conservative Judge would play a major part in the final outcome – is unacceptable to many especially where these non impartial decisions are set down without reporting whereupon such decisions might meet more intense scrutiny.

@ JohnMurphy

John to be honest the “in camera” rule as applied in family law seems to me to be totally justified. Manfreds responses are the clearest evidence I need. Family law disputes arise, generally, when family relationships have broken down to such a point that they need strangers to make the decisions for them. They are often highly emotional – and those emotions tend to be anger, jealousy, hurt etc. People are not at their best in those situations. It is hard to be rational, fair or calm. That is not the place for the press.

When young shildrens interests are at stake, when parents are dragging each others name through the mud – that is not my business, yours or anyone elses except the parties involved and I throughly appreciate the reason for keeping these matters away from the glare of public life.

Media is about money. Nothing else. It would be wonderful to think news and newspapers would be high minded and report the news without bias or agenda. Unfortunately that is not always the case and family members would have their names dragge through a court of public opinion. Just look at the kind of comments made here for example.

Family law disputes are not really a matetr for the public.

I have serious issues with how the judiciary are appointed in this country. I have very very few issues with bias displayed by the judiciary once they ARE appointed. How the judiciary are appointed is a matter for government – not the judges themselves. Criticise the politicans who want the power to appoint the judges, not the judges themselves.

There are many excellent judges. Unfortunately there are many bad ones. That is true of every profession from waiters to Taoisigh. Your suggestion that judges are all “conservative” is unrealistic and unhelpful as is your suggestion that their decisions in family matters are not impartial. Whilst youve made insightful comments John in some matters, your blanket views labelling all members of the judiciary in one big pot will have you regarded as a consipracy theorist. Its simply not the case.

The law is imperfect, often practised poorly and poor decisions are made. Many excellent decisions are also made – even by bad judges. Judging the legal profession and the judiciary on the basis of family law matters is a recipe for disaster. There is scarcely any more unpleasant place than a courtroom in which a previously loving family is hitting the self-destruct button with a judge who has to try and sift through the emotion, the anger and the entrenched positions and try to get to the cold facts before making a decision which is ultimately going to infuriate one party to such an extent that they brand the entire legal system as biased and unfair.

Whilst Manfred is entitled to his views, he is the last person on earth anyone should listen to for an unbiased, fair appraisal of the legal system. His own view on the system seems to have been irrevocably damaged by his own experience.

I don’t know, 10? Who cares, you can’t use that jaded argument for everything.

Whoosh…

The point has gone right over your head.
The point being that 38 million would do a lot for any departments or services.

I’m sorry to see these comments so often on such an excellent website. Why is it that so many people feel that the health service is being deprived because we spend money in prisons or the legal system etc?

Are we simply to abandon all other services so that there is more money for the health service? If 38m was spent on the roads/public transport etc would you be making the same argument?

I’m afraid it’s an argument that lacks any insight whatsoever and its a shame to see it made so often?

Misterwritenow

Firstly you see solicitors adjourning cases for no reason? Just to make money? They must give the judge SOME reason. How do you know the reason is not legitimate? How often do you appear in court that you see it happening?

What is the problem with the same barristers and solicitors getting assigned? They will get paid the same amount no matter who gets assigned so it doesn’t cost the state any more based on who is assigned.

You have also made the mistake of assuming that the appearance in court is the only work done. The legal representative must also meet with the client, discuss his case with him advise him and the prepare. All of which work is covered by the one legal aid fee.

I would also add that “you seeing solicitors do it” certainly isn’t evidence enough.

Felix.
I have personally seen a very mediocre barrister demanding E1,500 cash up front at the door of the law library for a very mediocre 30mins. work in court and a 10min briefing beforehand.
I have personally been in situations where the case in hand is discussed for the first time on a very perfunctory basis before tearing down the corridor gowns flying wig askew to make the announcement from the list.
I have personally been at pre hearing meetings where an unprepared barrister has asked me (10mins. before going in!) what will I say when called! To which, of course I’ve replied – tell me your questions.

@ John Murphy

For God sake John. Its a service industry. if you are unhappy with the $1,500 you are charged then get someone else. There are literally hundreds of barristers begging for work. Shop around. Seek competitive pricing. Insist that your solicitor present you with a dozen different barristers and what they will charge for the work. Its a starightfoward service industry. There are superb barristers. There are bad ones. Its just the same as any other business.

If you dont shop around – which no one does – then you are likely to get charged a premium amount. Dont accept what your solicitor offers. Tell him “I need a barrister, and I dont just want the guys youve been briefing for 15 years – I want a selection of the best and a selection of some young talent and I want an estimate of fees from each for what they will charge and I WILL BE THE ONE TO CHOOSE WHO WE USE”

That does not happen though.

Again Felix I don’t disagree with you. You sometimes seem to think that I am out to unfairly misrepresent the legal profession. I am not. My comment at the top of the page should tell you that.
I have been in situations many times where I have put hours and hours of work (at the clients expense) into reports and advices for legal briefings to discover upon meeting up for the first time on the steps of the court that the barrister has read non of it! Then being asked ‘what are you going to say when I get up’. Really Feilix, if you are a legal practitioner don’t tell me this does not happen.
The legal profession is a service industry ‘best beast to the hugest bidder’ and all of that, and there is a surplus of good barristers crying out for work, I’ve made that point myself above. The legal profession is also a mystery to most of the public and the selection and appointment of barristers is mostly left in the trusted hands of the solicitor. In practice what ordinary member of the public is aware of the abilities or charges of a particular barrister before appointment. Now really!
As for the E1,500. It didn’t come out of my pocket i’m glad to say. I was just the lowly dogsbody who had researched the briefing and in that particular case was desperately appraising the barrister as we were running through the corridors.

@ John Murphy.

Firtsly John I am not now, nor have I ever said anywhere, that the legal profession is perfect or that everyone in it is a shining beacon of professionalism.

Its unfortunate that a barrister showed up to that hearing unprepared. Yes these things do happen. As they do in every single profession from lowest to highest. Its highly unfair to tar the entire profession with the same brush based on that example.

In fairness to you John your negative comments seem, in the main, to be directed at the Judiciary rather than practitioners generally.

The public are not at all aware of the abilites and charges of barristers generally. That is why the bar is an appallingly run institution. The senior members will be delighted with this decision by the government which seems frankly to be based on looking after the governments friends rather than the public interest. There is no real and meaningful competition at the bar bewteen practitioners which mean many young, talented members are forced to leave despite being better educated, prepared and more talented than many of their senior colleagues (albeit with far less experience obviously).

The public interest is NOT served by ensuring that state briefs only go to the same group of people ad infinitum. That the government saved some money last year is not a good reason not to go looking for more savings this year.

Its a disgraceful decision by the Taoiseach.

The client in that case could have refused to pay the €1500. He could have said no – Ill get someone else, walked into court and said that his Counsel had demanded exorbitant fees up front and was not prepared, in the circumstances it would have been reasonable to seek an adjournment.

Felix.
Perhaps we are not not such poles apart as you thought upon our first encounter.
You are right. My main criticism of the legal system is about the political influence in the appointment of Judges and the mobility of lawyers careers. I feel that there is an unhealthy symbiosis between the political and legal establishment that, fairly or unfairly, (fairly in my opinion) gives rise to suspicion in the eyes of the public. Your comment regarding the appearance of this government decision suiting the interests of senior members is a case in point and this decision serves not only to defy the public interest but also that of younger more able lawyers.
I know that there are many fine judges, mostly in the higher courts, who agonize deeply about some of the unpalatable decisions they have had to make and I have often not envied their lot. However, I also know that there are dreadful examples and legal practitioners are perhaps most the most likely to agree if was in their interest to do so.
Thank you for your considered comments and replies. I hope we can ‘cross swords’ soon again!

First of all sitting in court means you see cases adjourned. It does not mean you see them adjourned for no reason. in fairness you don’t have anything to support your contention that cases are adjourned for no reason.

Legal aid in the district court is assigned to solicitors. It is assigned, usually, to a solicitor nominated by the client. If the clients would choose a wider variety of solicitors you might have a wider dispersement of legal aid funds. But it wouldn’t cost the state any less.

Barristers are selected by the solicitor. Now if solicitors would only choose more junior barristers more often the. Fewer would be broke and have to leave the profession. But it wouldn’t cost the state any less.

What has ‘my friend’ to do with anything?

@ Misterwritenow

Have you any evidence to support your contention that legal teams drag cases out and seek adjournments just to “cream off” the system? Cases are generally adjourned for good reason.

By whose reckoning is the criminal legal aid system good value? By every single person who actually knows what theyre talking about frankly. Most people have no idea what the criminal legal aid system pays, or how much work is required to earn that money.

As to why the public should foot the bill – because everyone is entitled to a fair trial. In order to have a fair trial in a highly complex legal system you need expert representation. If there were no legal aid then lawyers could charge whatever they liked and most people would be unable to afford good representation.

Every citizen, EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, should be entitled to good representation. You are, I am and yes even career criminals are too. Its the price we pay for a free society and frankly the cost to that society is pretty cheap.

Those that do not know might get some help from this:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfeymhojsnql/rss2/

@ John Murphy

Im afraid John that those article are no help whatsoever. They mislead the public entirely. There is no break down of how the fees work or are applied or what work was done to earn them.

It is all very well to say that someone earned €750,000K as a solicitor. But they personally didnt earn that. The money went to their law practice from which they draw a salary. A salary significantly less than that sum (though in all probability they are still very well paid). Nor do those figures tell you the persons case load or how any cases they had to do to earn that money, how long they went on for etc.

Those figures and articles do nothing but incite anger against the legal profession who do not realise that the service they paying for is remarkably cheap. Those articles are grossely unhelpful.

Really? And what exactly are you basing this on? Who’s fees are obscene? All barristers, everywhere?

The fees paid to who and for what are obscene?

I would most seriously advise anyone with an interest in understanding the legal system and the law to stay as far away from “crooked lawyers” and “rate my solicitor” as possible. These web sites are highly defamatory and contain completely unsubstantiated, unfair and appalling criticisms without any supporting evidence or justification.

They are unfortunately run by a number of people (lay litigants for the most part) who feel the system has persecuted them largely because they have no understanding of it. It is a highly prejudicial and damaging web site and I would urge all rational people to stay away from it.

I would most seriously advise every person to read this website , these people are real and this is only the tip of a massive iceberg , in time history will judge them

Thankfully “crooked lawyers.com” doesnt actually exist at the link.

These websites are started by people with little or no understanding of the legal system or process and a brief persual of any of the opinions on there should be enough to convince anyone that those opinions are irrational and paranoid.

There is o unbiased discussion of issues nor a fair presentation of facts from both sides. It simply one sided slandering of practitioners.

Avoid at all costs – if you want to know what happens in Court on a daily basis, go down to the courthouse and watch.

Yeh we don’t need a legal system lets get rid of them all. If the government think your guilty you go jail. If you feel hard done by in a shop tough luck. If the bank are trying to repossess your house just give it to them. If two businessmen have a row let them use pistols on O’Connell street. There is no need for lawyers!!! It’s an immature and pathetic comment Ciaro!

I’m sorry to say Ciaro that that is a grossely misinformed statement. An extremely high number of barristers operate their practices at a loss. A very very high percentage of young barristers are forced to leave the profession because they cannot earn a living – the last I checked it was something in the order of 50-60 % dropping out after 6 years having made significant losses and spending a great deal of their time working without pay of any kind.

Criminal Legal aid fees in particualr are extremely good value for money and set by the State – not by the lawyers. Some barristers – the ones at the top of the tree earn staggering sums. These people are often working in commercial law representing private citizens or companies – not the State.

Those representing the State in these commercial actions, often against the banks, do also make very large sums of money. Who is to blame for all the litigation involving the banks? Not the barristers. But thats civil/commercial work.

Criminal defence/prosecution work is, by contrast, extremely poorly paid.

Some barristers earn very good money. Only a small proportion of the bar earn that money at the cost of the state. The majority of the bar – predominantly young barristers trying to make a living – earn extremely little and have to leave.

It is interesting that you suggest that barristers should be removed from the equation completely. Should the entire legal profession be handed over to solicitors?

Well Dermot – the 50-60%have left the bar so they won’t be taking cases. They’d also need a solicitor to brief them in the case. So a solicitor would have to be instructed.

Hello Felix
I am very much in agreement with the first paragraph of your reply to Ciaro. The dropout rate of young barristers is shocking. Those that do struggle to make their way up through the ranks of the bear pit that is the law library often are reduced to penury. It is very unfair these struggling young lawyers who are then treated with the contempt that may or may not be more appropriated directed at their higher earning colleagues.
I have worked with young lawyers who are ambitious, well trained and well versed in their specialty who struggled to buy their wig and gown!
Why this might be?
Well just my own opinion based only upon my own experience. The bar is very politicized, very contact driven and in many cases a lawyers ability is based upon perceptions rather than actuality. I have personally been involved in a rather routine liqueur licensing case where a wealthy client thought it best (as a precaution) to instruct his solicitor to appoint one of the ‘big guns’. The barrister, upon the case being called, got to his feet where upon he was addressed by the Judge to be told what an honour it was to have a lawyer of such standing in attendance at his Court. Needless to say the case was heard in a perfunctory manner and everyone got home early for their tea.
Now what young barrister can rise above that?

@ John Murphy

I rarely agree with you John but that is exactly the situation faced by most new barristers. A vast number are forced out of the bar and the decision by the Taoiseach not to tender for work will only ensure the problem continues without remedy. Bright, enthusiastic, talented young men and women are being forced from the profession becasue the same older, established Counsel are briefed constantly without any meaningful competition. This is the cause of many of the main problems at the bar.

Unfortunately though, as with most people who have unflattering views of he legal profession, you cannot support or justify your claims.

who says he has to support or justify his opinion to you or anyone.

If he wants to call into question the professionalism and honesty of ALL legal practitioners and effectively slander the entire profession he should have justification for doing so.

If you Joseph were defamed in a newspaper or by someone on television or in court would you sit there and say “Oh well, who says he has to justify his opinion to me or to anyone?” Would you just take it on the chin? I very much doubt it.

This person is saying the criminal legal aid system does not represent good value. I have asked him why not but he cannot answer the question because he has no idea how it works. And hes not alone.

It is entirely appropriate to ask someone to justify such uninformed views.

I at least can support my views with coherent, unbiased facts.

im not saying that i agree or disagree with him or with u.
i am simply pointing out that this is not a court room and he doesn’t have to explain himself
if he doesn’t wish to.

with regards to someone defaming me in a newspaper etc,
i would bring them to court where they would have to answer if i felt strongly enough about it.

anyway, i enjoy reading ur posts

@ Joseph

Of course he does not have to. But what is the point otherwise? How can he or anyone else expect to be taken seriously when they have no rational justification for their point of view?

Take Ciaro for example. I asked “Ciaro” some basic questions to establish in what way the “fees are obscene” – I got no reply. The truth of it is that Ciaro obviously has no idea whether or not the fees are obsecene and is basing his view on nothing at all except an obvious dislike for the legal profession.

Misterwriter has said he agrees with Cormac. Cormac has suggested that solicitors generally look for unnecessary further dates simply to earn more money at the expense of the tax payer. I asked how they know this to be the case and all they can point to is that “Ive seen it happen”.

How can they have seen it happen? Solicitors dont ask for another date on the basis that they need to earn more money. They ask for further dates for legitimate reasons. Perhaps they have an alterior motive. They certainly dont vocalise it in Court. So Writer and Cormac cannot possibly have any idea whether solicitors are asking for futher dates just to feather their nests.

If you’re going to make blatant accusations of corruption in a public forum you should be able to stand over your views. Otherwise your simply contributing to public hysteria.

Thats more or less accurate Barry. You can be banned from driving for far longer than 4 years. I have often seen bans of 10, 20 or even 50 years from Judges in cases where the circumstances of the offence are particularly grave.

If you plead guilty on any of your dates in court, up to and including a hearing date, the Court will hear a “plea in mitigation” from solicitor/counsel and decide on punishment. For very minor offences/where there are circmstances to justify it, the Court may apply the probation act and you will avoid a conviction. For more serious matters you will receive a conviction and fine/imprisonment etc.

Minor matters to be dealt with in the District Court are not “sent forward to trial”. That applies only to matters being dealt with in the Circuit Court ie. more serious crimes. Such offences are “sent forward” to the sittings of the Circuit Court to be dealt with before a jury at trial.

Minor matters are dealt with in the District Court by way of hearing before a Judge sitting alone where there is a plea of “Not Guilty”.

In reality it can take 3 or 4 dates in court before matters are ready for hearing – often much longer. The vast majority of matters are dealt with by way of plea. There can often be several dates in court before a matter is pleaded to however. It differs in every case.

Fees paid by the State for defence work in the District Court are as you have outlined. Barristers are not strictly speaking entitled to legal aid payments in the District Court. As a result The Bar Council & Law Society have an arrangement that Counsel and Solicitor split the fee where Counsel appear. For a standard adjournment of a case (for example a cases first day in Court) the €50 fee will be split between Counsel and Solicitor and each is entitled to €25.

The sums are all paid directly to the solicitor only. The barrister must send a bill to the solicitor for his/her attendance. In practice many solicitors ignore such feenotes from Counsel and refuse to pay until it suits them to do so – leaving young, new Junior Counsel out of pocket for months at a time. Unfortunately for the barrister there is no practical way of ensuring payment – they just have to put up with it.

Very intersting John – I havent seen anyone on this thread “defending themselves”. Nor any evidence of anyone sucking up to corruption…

Who exactly are these people?

@ TinyTomato

The aggressive and unpleasant tone of your comment notwithstanding Ill reply to you post. As it happens I am a qualified barrister and member of the law library. I have practised in both criminal and civil law.

The criminal legal aid scheme is anything but a joke. It is a vital tool of any society that purports to protect ALL of its citizens. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed to every Irish citizen under the constitution. Its is absolutely right that it should to so and is required by the European Court of Human Rights. The only way a citizen can have a fair trial is with access to legal representation. You are of course entitled to refuse such representation but you must be entitled to have it.

Unfortunately a large number of people cannot afford the fees that professionals with that level of qualification charge. I visited my dentist recently and he found nothing wrong with my teeth but charged me €60 to tell me that. I was there for 15 mins. How much would it cost to hire legal represenation for at least a couple of hours – often much longer at similar rates? Most people couldnt afford it and many lawyers would charge significantly more.

That is why legal aid is a MUST. It is imperative – absolutely essential.

Tomato conteds that it costs the State far too much. How do you know Tomato? The level of work put into each case varies – but its never reported or analysed. Have you any idea the amount of work it takes to defend someone accused of murder? Even something as common place as drunk driving is extremely complex and can have dire consequences for someone convicted. Those cases can take several hours to prepare and a lay person simply couldnt deal with it on their own.

Without knowing the hours, level of qualification and difficulty of each individual case – how can you possibly know whether it cost the State too much?

If we told you that the State spent €50m last year on one project – you may well say “Thats crazy! Thats too much”. If they then told you “Actually we built Croke Park for that money…” – you would have to say “Wow a stadium for 50m seems a bargain. Its an exaggerated point I realise – but it illustrates the difficulty nicely. You simply cannot judge whether criminal legal aid represents good value for money without actually knowing what you get for your money. The public do not know what service they get for their tax dollars.

The criminal legal aid system represents extraoridinary good value for money. The public are getting a lot of “bang for their buck” – moreso than in any other are of law or I would guess any other state organ.

As to “benefitting scumbags” – Legal aid protects EVERYONE. If you ever bought health insurance you hoped you would never need to use it. But its there just in case. Legal aid is the same. I hope you never appear charged with a criminal offence – but if you do and you cannot afford representation the system will come to your aid. And it wont provide just any old ambulance chaser – you can actually have the very best (depending on the seriousness of your alleged offence).

The laws of our country also protect all of us. You. Me. And yes….career criminals as well. Unfortunate but also the price you pay for living in a free country.

Can the government bring charges against Sean Quinn for gambling his business and landing the taxpayer with a 30 billion bill, if that’s what happened!

Ciaro-What on earth are you talking about and where did you get 30 billion.

3C, Quinn took a loan from Anglo to buy shares in Anglo… That was illegal.

Since the collapse of his ‘empire’ he has attempted to offload assets to family and offshore companies in an attempt to avoid the recuperation of debt now owed to the Irish Taxpayer… The earlier the courts gain control over his assets the more of them will be left for us, the people!

I’m a Capitalist through and through but Quinn has failed and he needs to face the consequences!

Firstly it is unreasonable and unfair to tarnish the entire legal profession based on just your experience.

Secondly family law is an extremely dangerous area on which to judge the actions of legal representatives. Family law, more an any other area of law, involves bad blood, irrational arguments and hysteria. Families broken apart, arguments over custody of children, possession of property and dissolution of assets. Each party to the action convinced they are right.

In those circumstances when one party is inevitably on the losing side they blame the practitioners, the system, the judges. they cannot understand why their highly emotional, highly one sided view was not adhered to by an impartial body. I have seen this dozens of times.

Judging the legal system based on the outcome of your own personal family law experiences is going to lead to a highly skewed and largely unfair view of how it works.

Felix.
Again I agree with most of what you say.
However. Again based upon personal experience and the opinions of some legal commentators I hold the view that the ‘in camera’ environment has been the scene of some very impartial decisions by Judges where the possibility of a press report might have rendered it different.

Sorry for the typo.
Should be ‘non impartial decisions’. Last sentence.

@John Murphy

I cannot say either way John as I have not been in attendance at those hearings you claim were “non-impartial”.

I find it highly unlikely however. Nor would I take the word of your “legal commentators”.

Sean Quinn gambled on the jobs of his empires and lost. Greed, as he has admitted.

Ciaro, Sean Quinn did not gamble away any jobs. He invested seven hundred million euros of his own money in an IRISH BANK, THAT WAS REGULATED BY THE FINANCIAL REGULATOR AND SUPERVISED BY OUR GOVERNMENT.—FACT.

You clearly have little understanding of the situation which never would have burdened the taxpayers or the employees if:
a the banks had not been nationalized and a blanket guarantee given,
b the Quinn proposal, which guaranteed that all monies that were advanced by Anglo would have been returned, all jobs retained and 1800 additional jobs created.

ammendment to last post-
b The taxpayers or employees would not have been affected in any way if the Quinn proposal had not been inappropriately and unjustly eliminated.

Mark john awsome stuff great to hear the truth about society

I checked the statute Barry. Just out of curiosity.

You are completely mistaken. S.65 (4)(a) “The disqualification shall be NOT LESS than four years on a first offence, and NOT LESS than 6 years for a second offence”

Not Less. Each an every tim the length of a DQ is mentioned in that legislaion its complimented with the words “not less”. Those are minimums. The Judge is perfectly entitled to increase the disqualification and I have seen it many many times.

As for the difference between a hearing and a trial whilst technically the term “trial” is not inaccurate in practice it is not used for District Court hearings. All Judges use the term hearing to describe contests where there is a plea of not guilty. The term tria lis not used. Solicitors and barristers who fight cases in the District Court never refer to themselves as “being at trial” – they universally would describe themselves as having a “hearing”. If a practitioner said they were “at trial” it would be universally understood that they were before a jury in the Circuit or Central Criminal Courts.

Whilst technically not inaccurate – in practice “trial” is simply not used to dscribe District Court hearings by any practitioners. If you use it then I imagine you get some very strange looks from your colleagues.

As I said before – I am a member of the law library practising in Dublin in the CJ weekly. I am not the least bit confused as to how any of this works in practice.

In the District Court accused people rarely stand up and say “Im pleading not guilty”. The more usual situation is that the case is remanded and eventually a hearing date is sought. A formal plea of “not guilty” isnt all that common.

As for judges assigning “trial dates” on the first day in court because an accused pleads “not guilty” – that simply does not happen. It may perhaps occur in a particular District out on circuit where a Judge has his own views on how to manage his list. It doesnt happen in Dublin.

In your first post Mr. Sheehan you used the term “sent forward for trial” in relation to District Court matters. I pointed out to you that “sent forward” is a term used in preparing Circuit Court matters only. It is not relevant to minor matters prosecuted in the District Court. I said this in my very first reply to you. Its amusing that youre now attempting to rewrite history by explaining to me what Ive already pointed out to you.

I got your point entirely about the “in camera” rule Manfred. It is there for a perfectly legitimate reason – and that is not to protect lawyers or the judiciary.

Unfortunately you have not grasped my point whilst being an absolutely perfect example of it.

Family Law is one small part of the legal system and it is dangerous for litigants within it to judge the system based solely on their own experience. That is true of ANY profession or any part of the legal system. Particulalry so in family law however.

You said it yourself Manfred – you are bitter and angry as a result. That gives you a highly skewed and prejudicial view of the legal system. Yor views are tainted by your experience and are not therefore credible. There is simply too much bias there – too much anger. All too often the case in family law matters.

That’s completely and utterly incorrect. You haven’t a rashers what your talking about!

That comment makes absolutely no sense at all. You have no idea what your on about!

Legal Aid in the District Court is STILL confined to solicitors alone. The legal aid fess are paid directly to solicitors and, as I have already pointed out, barristers must send a feenote for their share of the fees to their instructing solicitor.

In practice a counsel and solicitor will NOT come to a “private arrangement” regarding fees. That is completely and utterly incorrect and leads me to believe Barry that you do not practice in criminal law at all or at least not in this jurisidiction.

Some few District Court counsel may have been lucky to come to some alternative arrangement with a n instructing solcitor. In 99.9% of cases however set fees are paid by solicitors to counsel for district court appearances. Currently it is €25.20 for an adjournment, €50.40 for a plea of guilty and €68 for a hearing. Those are the fees payable and that is what Junior Counsel in the Distirct Court are currently paid.

@ Barry Sheehan

A Judge is entirely within his rights to issue bans of longer than four years. If you take the most common example of drunk driving cases or driving without insurance I have seen bans far in excess of four years – as I said there are always aggravating factors such as a very poor history of roat traffic convictions. However it is simply not accurate to say that this ONLY occurs where someone has driven during a previous ban or at Circuit Court level.

In relation to the Probation Act – it may well be available but in practice is usually only applied where the offence is minor/there are no previous convictions.

Disposal of summary matters in two days. Yes that is often the case. It is also often not the case. It is simply not accurate to suggest that “almost all ” summary offences are dealt with in two days. In many highly unexceptional cases the matter can be remanded several times.

If you are a practising solicitor you will know that there are no “trial dates” in the District Court. District Court matters are finalised by way of “hearing” before a judge alone if there is a a plea of not guilty. You would also know that cases are not “sent forward” for hearing in the District Court.

No fee sharing arrangement between the Bar Council and Law Society? A matter for negotiation between Counsel and Solicitor? There is no negotiation between individual barristers and solicitors. You are extremely wide of the mark if you believe that to be the case. There is a set fee for Barristers appearing in the District Court – €25.20 for adjournments, €50.40 for pleas of guilty and currently €68 for a hearing. Those are the fees and they are not subject to negotiation.