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

Reform of the Legal Services Sector

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Yeah it is very difficult to gauge at the moment. I dont think it should be overstated so much though, Barristers do the job because of the independence it brings, if they wanted to join a law firm or go in-house they have that choice already and choose not to go so this Bill may not have a huge effect on taking away readily available Barristers and those that want to remain independent and want to give their practice the best chance of being successful would be unwise to contract with a big firm exclusively I think.

    One area that might go the way feared is Medical Negligence, the big five do almost all of the defence in this area and they might have the resources to contract or retain SC who are expert in this area which could limit the counsel available to plaintiffs. Not saying it will happen only that its feared.


  • Options
    #153
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    valleyoftheunos wrote: »
    One area that might go the way feared is Medical Negligence, the big five do almost all of the defence in this area and they might have the resources to contract or retain SC who are expert in this area which could limit the counsel available to plaintiffs. Not saying it will happen only that its feared.

    You'd have to wonder if the big firms can match the fees that the med neg SC's would be getting. That said, a lot of SC's take pay cuts when they go to the bench, perhaps it's a security thing.


  • Options
    #154
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    You'd have to wonder if the big firms can match the fees that the med neg SC's would be getting. That said, a lot of SC's take pay cuts when they go to the bench, perhaps it's a security thing.

    If anyone can its them, the likes of Matheson and A&L have savage resources. You have to remember also that the clients are the likes of the HSE, Hospitals and insurance companies. Their deep pockets combined with the size of possible claims or settlements and the fees might become attainable and justifiable.

    Again I have my doubts but I do think it is a feasible scenario.


  • Options
    #155
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    What if firm A can do the job in 20 hours and firm B makes 30 hours out of it?

    More hours for less money = better deal.


  • Options
    #156
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    More hours for less money = better deal.

    20 X 1000 = 20,000

    30 X 900 - 27,000

    It is a better deal to pay 27,000 than 20,000?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    LowKeyReturn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 934 ✭✭✭LowKeyReturn


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    20 X 1000 = 20,000

    30 X 900 - 27,000

    It is a better deal to pay 27,000 than 20,000?

    It depends. Is this 27,000 because the barrister did a better job and got you €250,000 in damages over the €20,000 one losing the case and you getting costs awarded against you?


  • Options
    #158
    LowKeyReturn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 934 ✭✭✭LowKeyReturn


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    You'd have to wonder if the big firms can match the fees that the med neg SC's would be getting. That said, a lot of SC's take pay cuts when they go to the bench, perhaps it's a security thing.

    Or perhaps a prestige thing now that they are financially secure. That's not a criticism it's a good thing that some do!


  • Options
    #159
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    LowKeyReturn wrote: »
    It depends. Is this 27,000 because the barrister did a better job and got you €250,000 in damages over the €20,000 one losing the case and you getting costs awarded against you?

    This was in response to a line of argument that if a quote of 900 and hour was obviously better than one for 1000 and hour.

    It appeared to assume that the amount of time taken would be the same and the result would be the same.


  • Options
    #160
    LowKeyReturn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 934 ✭✭✭LowKeyReturn


    Bluegrass1 wrote: »
    This was in response to a line of argument that if a quote of 900 and hour was obviously better than one for 1000 and hour.

    It appeared to assume that the amount of time taken would be the same and the result would be the same.

    This is all very hypothetical and in truth life is alot more complicated.

    My 2 cents is that I don't want to see a US style legal system here. If the top minds start going in house the little guy is going to suffer. OTOH the little guy needs to be able to afford to get a case into court.


  • Options
    #161
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    A number of posts have been deleted for off-topicness and being generally uncivil. Let's try and keep our heads. We're all grown-ups now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Did anyone see the Irish Times today? Sounds like solicitor/barrister partnerships and firms will be allowed right away (early next year) but multidisciplinary partnerships are delayed until an independent review is carried out.

    I was of the impression that this was always the case.

    It wasn't the most clear article, is that what everyone else took from it too?


  • Options
    #163
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    I do remember reading the relevant section of the Legal Services Bill a short while ago which makes it clear that a Barrister can't be briefed by a solicitor's firm he is employed in.


  • Options
    #164
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I do remember reading the relevant section of the Legal Services Bill a short while ago which makes it clear that a Barrister can't be briefed by a solicitor's firm he is employed in.
    Really? Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose?


  • Options
    #165
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Really? Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose?

    I think it was the likes of Barristers employed by their company eg the Competition Authority or UPC or IMRO or whatever the entity might be can use their Barristers. But I'm certain, on my last reading of the Bill, that a solicitor's firm cannot instruct a Barrister they have employed.


Advertisement