TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Legal aid lawyers have fees cut by another 10 per cent

Almost one-third has been knocked off solicitor and counsel fees in criminal legal aid scheme since 2009.

File photo
File photo
Image: Graham Hughes/Photocall Ireland

JUSTICE MINISTER ALAN Shatter has signed into law a 10 per cent cut on fees paid to solicitors and counsel who provide ‘free’ criminal legal aid.

While the legal aid is provided gratis to defendants who qualify for it, the expense is borne by the State. Legal counsel providing services in the district courts under the criminal legal aid scheme have now seen their fees cut by almost 30 per cent in three years. In 2009, fees were cut by 10.5 per cent and in 2010, they were cut by another 8 per cent. The most recent cut, which came into effect yesterday, brings the total decrease in fees to 28.5 per cent.

The 10 per cent cut will not just apply to lawyers’ fees in court – it will also apply to:

  • Fees payable in respect of essential visits to prisons, other custodial centres and for certain bail applications;
  • Fees payable under the ad-hoc Garda station and CAB schemes;
  • Payments made to professionals engaged by the defence as expert witnesses;
  • Translation/interpretation services.

Shatter also confirmed today that a 10 per cent decrease will be applied to fees to lawyers working under the legal aid scheme in circuit and higher courts. This cut will come into effect “in the next number of weeks”, a Department of Justice statement read.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (22 Comments)

  • Andy 14/07/11 #

    Seems only fair Judges pay gets cut too?

    Reply
  • Why should the taxpayer pay for a person to live a life of crime ? Fine – if it is your first offence & you can’t afford a solicitor. However, after that, the state should pay for your legal rep upfront if you can’t afford it, but deduct the cost from your pay packet or welfare. People have to be accountable & responsible for their behaviour & if you become a habitual offender – pay for it yourself. Why should our hard earned taxes go to pay for someone to continually live a life of crime with no accountability & responsibility.

    Reply
    • It is called democracy, live with it. The right to be represented fairly in a court is one of the corners of western civilization. Yeah it sucks when you have assholes abusing it, but it has to say, because that is democracy.

      Reply
    • I know it is democracy. My point is that if a person is a repeat offender, they must pay back the taxpayer/state who pay for their representation. I don’t think someone should have their legal costs paid for by the taxpayer/state when they are apparently career criminals. They have to be accountable & responsible for their actions & a part of doing this is to pay back from their pay cheques or welfare what the taxpayer/state paid. No one is suggesting they don’t get fair representation. Just pay it back as someone has to pay for it. That is a little something I believe repeat offenders just have to “live with”. They wouldn’t be in that position if they didn’t commit crime. Take responsibility for your deeds & pay back what the state/taxpayers provides.

      Reply
    • Dvonne 15/07/11 #

      Agreed, but most of them have fuck all money.

      Reply
    • That’s no excuse, Dvonne. Take accountability & responsibility for your actions & don’t expect the hard press taxpayer to pick up the tab. If such a person is waged or on welfare, deduct cost from that & that’s how I feel on the subject. There are too many excuses made. If that person commits a crime & needs representation, pay up. Take crae & have a nice day.

      Reply
  • Declan…your god damn right

    Reply
  • The more cost savings the better.

    Reply
  • Thank u, Eagle Eye.

    Reply
  • Does that mean these poor Solicitors & Barristers will still be able to shop in Dunnes & Tescos just like the rest of us? Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? 28.8% of how much per case we should be told?

    Reply
    • 28.8% of about 28 euro. You do the maths. Yes there are a few mega earners but the vast majority if younger barristers don’t even earn the minimum wage! The average barrister earns a little over the industrial wage!

      Reply
    • The majority of the legal profession do not earn mega bucks but those who do are held up as examples of a typical legal income. Its a bit of a simplistic view but its an easy one to adopt because like the medical profession, the legal profession is one we all love to hate. 4 to 6 years in college, FE1 examinations, and then 2 years living on less than the dole while workin 60+ hours a week during training is the reality for new solicitors.

      Reply
  • Aren’t they are looking for solicitors under Jobbridge? That will be much cheaper.

    Reply
  • The legal profession in Ireland is overpaid, and it should be opened up to the market. I always get a great kick out of the fact that so many PD’s were barristers and Lawyers, and yet they never pushed for their own professions to be opened up. Never made wealth but rather sat in between two parties and took money off one. Well paid parasites on decent businesses and people.

    Reply
  • That’s great – less than 25 euro for Junior Barristers representing defendants! Makes all the years in college and unpaid devilling years worthwhile!!

    Reply
  • Dvonne 14/07/11 #

    Defending criminals may not be popular but in this democracy the right to a fair trial is sacrosanct. The job of those people tasked with protecting that right for those entitled to free legal aid shouldn’t be made so unattractive, from a remuneration point of view, that it is left to the dregs of the legal profession.

    Reply
  • Anyone with three criminal convictions should be denied free legal aid. Why should the taxpayer fund these losers indefinitely? There has to be some cut-off point.

    Reply
  • the law is the law and is not concerned with justice or fairness or equality. it has a law unto itself. it seems to bend over backwards for the one who breaks it. example, the judgement of the mother found guilty of grossly abusing her children yesterday. will someone explain this to me please.

    Reply
    • Dvonne 15/07/11 #

      What don’t you understand? Is it that difficult to get your little head around? She got 24 years with the final 16 years suspended which is a heavy enough sentence. She was convicted, so this isn’t a travesty of justice.

      Reply

Add New Comment