Board Snip recommendations on Junior/Senior Counsel

Lone Starr

Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes states (Volume II, p.210):

Distinction between junior and senior counsel
The Group has looked at the difference in the level of legal fees payable to junior and senior counsel. The Government, at its discretion, grants Patents of Precedence at the Bar on the recommendation of an Advisory Committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Bar Council. The Group is of the view that this distinction is unnecessary and contributes to higher legal costs payable by the State. Other jurisdictions function adequately without this hierarchy of legal professionals. The Group notes that this practice applies across the entire legal industry but considers that the removal of this distinction is unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the legal system.

Other comments in Volume I.

Good idea?

JohnW2008

The distinction between Bls and SCs has absolutely nothing to do with "higher legal costs payable by the State".

The supply of barristers currently exceeds demand. Therefore, it is a buyer's market as far as the government is concerned. It is rather the govt's atrocious negotiating abilities and inability to keep abreast of expendititure that has led to rising legal costs. The government is not forced to pay any wild figure a SC may throw out. But it increasingly seems as if they do.

Remember, it was due to a government slip up that SCs were given an even higher than agreed rate at the Moriarty tribunal.

Remember, it was Brian Cowen, as Min for Finance, who brought a memo to Cabinet seeking to extend the duration of the tribunals -- and to leave the fee structure untouched. This was subsequently endorsed by the caninet. [Irish Indo 3/7/09].

"Other jurisdictions function adequately without this hierarchy of legal professionals". Is that it? Is that why we should abolish it? Then it should also be noted that other jurisdictions fucntion adequately with this hierarchy of legal professionals.

Tom Young

This displays a complete lack of knowledge of how the legal system works.

An Bord Snip obviously are a bunch of socialist loons.

Common law jurisdictions do operate in such a fashion.

This is unreal.

hullaballoo

Tom Young wrote: »

An Bord Snip obviously are a bunch of socialist loons.

Totally agree.

It looks like they finally gave the Joe Duffy Angry Letter Brigade jobs:

"Eh, well, Joe, I tink it's ridiklus dat barristers ere gettin dat much an taxi droivers ere on'y gettin peanuts cos...eh...all dey had ti dew is go ta collidge fer [let's just say six] six yeeers when dem droivers be out on da rowid fer 20 yeeers learnin da trade. Ridiklus."


Yeah, well, I've got one for you: I can drive AND advocate.

Lone Starr

In fairness to them, they have examined every area of public expenditure, and, as a barrister who would someday aim to take silk, what value does the two rank system add? how is the two-rank system function any more efficiently than the three rank system before the class of serjeant was abolished?

Also, as steadfast a group of common law jurisdictions as the United States of America, Canada (federal level & some provinces), and at least one Australian state function without the various ranks.

Report also recommends the abolition of tip-staffs (Vol. II p.163), that the consideration of,

The feasibility of introducing a limited number of short-term non-pensionable law graduate internship placements contracts of 1 to 2 years clerking for a group of judges to assist judges with research should be explored

(Vol. II, p.164)

reform of the stamping system, changes in security at the four courts/planned security at Parkgate Street, wholesale means testing of legal aid, and that "the Legal Aid system should provide for one counsel for the defence side (matching the level on the prosecution side), except in the most exceptional of cases" (Vol. II, p.165).

As set out in another thread, its recommended that the Law Reform Commission are disbanded, with commissions fulfulling that function raised as and when necessary and staff going into the overworked AG's office.

Also, in something hard to argue with,

The Group has noted the practice of different state organisations pursuing legal cases against one another e.g. the Commissioner for Aviation Regulation vs. Aer Rianta. This duplication unnecessarily increases the burden of legal costs borne by the State. The Group proposes that there should be compulsory arbitration of legal disputes involving State bodies. Any State body wishing to resolve a legal dispute with another State body would be required to inform the relevant Minister who would then be responsible for mediating a solution or arranging for other forms of independent mediation. Legislative change should be initiated to implement this proposal if necessary.

(Vol. II, p.209).

Victor

Also, in something hard to argue with,

Quote:
The Group has noted the practice of different state organisations pursuing legal cases against one another e.g. the Commissioner for Aviation Regulation vs. Aer Rianta. This duplication unnecessarily increases the burden of legal costs borne by the State. The Group proposes that there should be compulsory arbitration of legal disputes involving State bodies. Any State body wishing to resolve a legal dispute with another State body would be required to inform the relevant Minister who would then be responsible for mediating a solution or arranging for other forms of independent mediation. Legislative change should be initiated to implement this proposal if necessary.

(Vol. II, p.209).

Um, separation of powers?

Sure, agree an arbitrator between them, but don't have ministers themselves deciding on what is or isn't law or fact.

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

This displays a complete lack of knowledge of how the legal system works.

An Bord Snip obviously are a bunch of socialist loons.

Common law jurisdictions do operate in such a fashion.

This is unreal.

Just because this is how it is done doensn't make it right.

As a solicitor I find the whole barrister lark most irritating. It gets even more irritating when you have JCs and SCs running up bills for your client when either should be capable of doing the job at hand on their own. (actually I think the solicitor can do the job himself or herself 99% of the time, but that is a story for another thread).

Sangre

Really don't get the difference between JC and SC myself. Let the market dictate prices for in demand barristers.

Jo King

maidhc wrote: »

Just because this is how it is done doensn't make it right.

As a solicitor I find the whole barrister lark most irritating. It gets even more irritating when you have JCs and SCs running up bills for your client when either should be capable of doing the job at hand on their own. (actually I think the solicitor can do the job himself or herself 99% of the time, but that is a story for another thread).

Why do you brief two of them then? You send one of them a brief to do a job, get a price and thats it. How can they run up bills for your client of their own volition?

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

Just because this is how it is done doensn't make it right.

As a solicitor I find the whole barrister lark most irritating. It gets even more irritating when you have JCs and SCs running up bills for your client when either should be capable of doing the job at hand on their own. (actually I think the solicitor can do the job himself or herself 99% of the time, but that is a story for another thread).

Perhaps on the 'how it is done' aspect I have a level of agreement. There is however a hierarchy and the hierarchy works.

'arrister lark' - Well you might then consider what you as a professional are not taught by the Law Society. There are definitive and clear references entitled 'refer to counsel' ....knowing myself where most of the areas arise, you'll I'm sure agree that there is value in what is brought to the table in advocacy particularly in complex litigation.

Quite often there are scenario's where both SC and JC are required depending on the matter. The greater the complexity the more pressing the need for SC input and so on. In general terms, it is a game of two sides.

Of course I can't agree with the 99% statement above. I'd say 60 - 70%. But that's my view.

Tom

nuac

As a solicitor I am happy with the current system, except for the automatic two/thirds fee of senior counsel's brief fee for Junior Counsel.

In some cases where Junior has been working on the case for years and SC is brought in for the trial, JC would have earned it.

However I have been involved in other matters where SC is brought in first, does the work, proofs etc. Hard to accept a two/thirds bill from JC who might be briefed just before the hearing.

The argument that it was "traditional" and "part of a young barrister's training" not well received by clients..

However I understand that this is no longer mandatory.

People should know that a potential SC does not like e.g. medical consultants have to undergo examinations or meaningful interviews.

More usually a busy Junior Counsel much in demand, perhaps on Circuit decides the (s)he would prefer to concentrate on more important cases within a speciality or range of specialities.

It is a calculated risk that solicitors will send work to the new SC, and that former colleaques in the Junior Bar will recommend the new SC. Some prosper, some don't. Market rules. Like most self-employed lawyers only as good as your last case. Clients win cases, lawyers lose them etc etc..

The tribunals paid barristers ridiculous fees which give the impression that the whole profession is on a gravy train. Not so. Also experienced solcitors better able to examine planning conveyancing etc files and should have been used.

Apart from tribunals, clients get a good service from the Bar. Any solicitor can contact the most eminent barrister.at the Library.. Any interference with an independent bar could mean that they would become linked or committed to the big Dublin firms, thus reducing the range of choice for litigants generally.

Therefore do not agree with Bórd Snip on that one..

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

'arrister lark' - Well you might then consider what you as a professional are not taught by the Law Society.

As a professional I would say I have been taught very little, if anything by the law society!

Tom Young wrote: »

There are definitive and clear references entitled 'refer to counsel' ....knowing myself where most of the areas arise, you'll I'm sure agree that there is value in what is brought to the table in advocacy particularly in complex litigation.

Absolutely, but what are we arguing about? I can see the need at times for a specialist. I don't see how it matters what the title of that person is, whether s/he is a BL or SC. I certainly don't see the need in an excellent SC and a very-good-but-not-so-excellent BL to add a further layer of cost. At the end of the day basically all you need is 1) Someone to draft 2) Someone to do an advice on proofs 3) Someone with the requisite ability to run the case if it comes to it. There isn't much work in all of the above, expecially when a solicitor has done 95% of the donkey work already.

Time Magazine

Tom Young wrote: »

An Bord Snip obviously are a bunch of socialist loons.

Eh, what?

Tom Young

Well in reply, Economist - This is what I meant. Taking socialism and bringing it to today and in the context of the open market being clearly and quite ignorantly adjudged by An Bord Snip Nua. I say they are wrong.

"economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion."

Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

Absolutely, but what are we arguing about?

I'm not arguing at all.

Milk & Honey

maidhc wrote: »

At the end of the day basically all you need is 1) Someone to draft 2) Someone to do an advice on proofs 3) Someone with the requisite ability to run the case if it comes to it. There isn't much work in all of the above, expecially when a solicitor has done 95% of the donkey work already.

Why does the solicitor not do 100% of the donkey work? You should not be using a thoroughbread race horse to pull a milk cart.

Time Magazine

Tom Young wrote: »

Well in reply, Economist - This is what I meant. Taking socialism and bringing it to today and in the context of the open market being clearly and quite ignorantly adjudged by An Bord Snip Nua. I say they are wrong.

Whether the recommendations are worthwhile or not (I don't claim to know enough about the legal profession to have a clue), the recommendation is far more in line with the liberalist pursuit of free entry and enterprise than the socialist redistribution of wealth.

There are many words I'd use to describe Colm McCarthy. "Socialist" isn't one of them.

the_wheel_turns

No one is making the Government pay Senior Counsel in place of experienced, and cheaper, Juniors who could offer similarly sound legal advice.

There will never be any change made to the distinction between Seniors and Juniors. The Competition Authority suggested it a few years back and they were told where to shove their suggestions by an infuriated statement from a judge (not sure who) who called for them to stop interfering in the legal profession!

stoblerone

I think this so called An Board Snip should be looking at ways of severely cutting the lavish expenses of those in the Oirechtas, without wasting what's left of taxpayers money time on nonsense ideas like removing the distinction between SC and JC.

In relation to the Bord's mention of fees, they seem only to be interested in reducing the fees paid to Counsel by the State, and suddenly - and without warning - their argument leaps into removing the distinction between Senior Counsel and Junior. Come on lads get on with the job and employ imaginative means which will actually result in cutting expenditure. I am wondering if An Bord Snip will suggest removing the distinction between medical consultants and registrars (if they have, please disregard).

What's needed by these agents of the government, who, severley lack any any sort of creavity) is creativity, innovation and talent.

Rant over:eek: