Reform of the Legal Services Sector

32minutes

This thread seems to be waning but I have a question more so than a comment.

If the government is seeking to get rid of the necessity for having a JC and an SC for certain cases on the basis that it would reduce costs for the consumer (as the primary goal); why not get rid of the distinction between SC and JC altogether ?

When a consumer/solicitor is going to choose a barrister this would reduce the distinction of whether they required an SC (who would have to undertake more gruntwork than normal and possibly charge more for this) and a JC (who may not have as much experience in leading a case or may have less chance of getting retained for the case as they are seen as arbitrarily inferior).

Of course this would take a long time to see a return on as the distinction would remain in reality until at least a completely new generation of barristers plus it may have a detrimental effect on current barristers who have made their name and put a lot of effort into becoming highly regarded as an SC (or even as a JC). This could do more to level the playing field between barristers and make the system more transparent for the consumer. Not sure if there would be huge consumer savings in it though so I was wondering what people think of this ?

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

This thread seems to be waning but I have a question more so than a comment.

If the government is seeking to get rid of the necessity for having a JC and an SC for certain cases on the basis that it would reduce costs for the consumer (as the primary goal); why not get rid of the distinction between SC and JC altogether ?

When a consumer/solicitor is going to choose a barrister this would reduce the distinction of whether they required an SC (who would have to undertake more gruntwork than normal and possibly charge more for this) and a JC (who may not have as much experience in leading a case or may have less chance of getting retained for the case as they are seen as arbitrarily inferior).

Of course this would take a long time to see a return on as the distinction would remain in reality until at least a completely new generation of barristers plus it may have a detrimental effect on current barristers who have made their name and put a lot of effort into becoming highly regarded as an SC (or even as a JC). This could do more to level the playing field between barristers and make the system more transparent for the consumer. Not sure if there would be huge consumer savings in it though so I was wondering what people think of this ?

Yup. Presumably junior counsel will do all the pre trial stuff and then senior counsel will take the eventual hearing fee. However, it seems to me that without the separation of roles of senior and junior counsel, any patent of precedence will be anti competitive. If you think about it, as matters stand it is a government controlled system which allows barristers carry out a different role, one which has an element of respect to it. If the role of seniorcounsel as leading counsel is removed, we will have a system whereby the government can arbitrarily select certain lawyers to be marked out as more prestigous and they would effectively be themselves interfering in the market.

Milk & Honey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I suppose it all boils down to fees. The public perception being that all lawyers make millions, the reality being that very few are making an appropriate wage in general (some too much; most far too little).

I don't think it's going to work if we beat around the bush with any new legislation. If there is a desire to "reform" the legal system, then we need to be more honest about it. There is no transparency at the moment though, so it's just vague concepts being bandied about that will have little to no actual impact on the "system" or any positive impact on fees structure (or any other significant aspect of the field).
Fees and wages are a cornerstone of reform, it should start there. How do we guarantee that young professionals get a living wage and that a few well connected individuals aren't running a profession where they control the market.

I guess in a way the problem is that people are fixated on a "reality" that isn't real... the millions just don't exist for 90%+ of either profession, although I think it's often overlooked that young solicitors are at least making some money.

I will say it again - you can make an income in your first few years - if you get one JR, one trial on indictment or one junior brief in the HC/SC, you will make more money than your fees and your other practise expenses. You won't make much but it is an income, however inferior it may seem to you.

FreudianSlippers

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I will say it again - you can make an income in your first few years - if you get one JR, one trial on indictment or one junior brief in the HC/SC, you will make more money than your fees and your other practise expenses. You won't make much but it is an income, however inferior it may seem to you.

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

nuac

Milk and Honey, I note your comment that a very junior barrister would do well if (s)he were briefed in a JR, Indictment , or junior brief in HC/SC.

As a solicitor of 40+ years experience I would be slow to brief a very junior barrister in any cases of that complexity.

The sad fact is that too many are qualifying as barristers and solicitors, and that there is not enough work there for them.

Het-Field

On the 27th October, the Irish Public will go to the polls, in order to select the ninth President of Ireland. Further, the people af Dublin West will elect a new member of An Dail Eireann, to replace Brian Lenihan Jnr (RIP).

While these elections, particularly the former, have captured the public interest, very little attention has been given to the Referenda which will be held on the same day. This lack of attention, reflects the lack of information which has been provided by the Governement in relation to the questions which will be asked.

It would appear that there will be at least two questions. The first will deal with the issue of Judicial Pay, while the second will deal with an increase in the investigative powers of Oireachtas committees.

I am interested to know whether a wording has been ascertained in relation to these questions, particularly the second, and whether there is any other potential questions which will be posed on polling day?

Milk & Honey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

Sorry about that. It was a quote from Johnny Skeleton. I meant to comment on it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53085141

32minutes

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but is/was that enough for you? Is it appropriate?

Let's face facts... this "reform" is more about public perception than it is about any real reform. If we want to challenge the statu quo, lets go for it! A handful of layers (of both professions) make a lot of money - most are average income at best.
Now we want to make life more difficult for those that are established without improving the life of those that are new? Who on earth does that benefit?
Unfortunately, nobody but the government.

I would respectfully disagree with this, at the minute the push for reform might be more to do with "optics" than substantive reform but there are real issues that people would like to see solved.

Firstly legal services is perceived as being too expensive, although I think this can get tangled up with a misconception that this is due to lawyers making huge sums of money. I think the marketplace is hugely expensive to operate in and it doesn't matter how many solicitors the equality authority thinks that the country needs, they'll all be expensive/unemployed unless the high fixed/variable expenses within the legal sector are really addressed such as PII, court services charges, practicing certificates and cost of training. This might sound like I'm trying to reduce overheads and make lawyers more money but the fact is if you do this AND increase competition (by sorting out qualification routes) then prices for the consumer in the marketplace will come down via competition, if marketplace prices come down then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure their legal expenses come down too by more effective tendering and hard bargaining over tribunal costs.

The second main problem is that the legal process is seen as taking too long. especially in the criminal courts. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that lawyers are collectively creating this issue by dragging out cases to charge more fees then this is a more difficult problem to solve. People will never be happy with the speed of cases but it does appear that in this country, in some cases the speed is worryingly slow and people have experiences of unmotivated solicitors dragging their heels or disorganized who don't help in this area. Again I think some of the government reforms in this area are misguided. Fusing the professions, chambers, more competition won't help, or at least they definitely won't help until the courts service is seen to reform first. Much better case management systems, introduction of IT systems and an increase in the sitting terms for the lower courts especially would do much more to speed up the process than some superficial overhaul of the legal profession IMO, but then again these things cost money.

The gown/wig debate is obviously a cheap piece to score political/media points so I don't really have an opinion on that.

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

I genuinely believe that a lot people are beginning to understand that not everyone in the legal profession is a tribunal SC coining it or a millionaire solicitor so if they try to make real reforms and explain their actions to people I think there's a good chance that it could be good for the consumer AND the profession long term.

i would also add one short thing; the lack of competition that the equality authority speaks of is more to do with lack of solicitor practices not solicitors and as long as the current system of qualifying and very high setup costs for solicitors remains, even a huge explosion in the number of solicitors wouldn't fix this as the current system makes it very difficult for a solicitor to setup independently, I think this could also help with younger barristers as more, smaller independent solicitor offices are going to create a better market for barristers

johnnyskeleton

32minutes wrote: »

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

This is true. If people want cheaper legal fees they can shop around until they find them. Many solicitors offer free consultations to clients and then take their cases on on a no foal no fee basis. Others charge their clients for outlay and a small professional fee of a few hunrded euro (which is very little when the amount of time and effort involved is taken into account).

Other solicitors take on legal aid or pro bono work. Despite the uproar about legal aid fees, we still have a reasonably priced system of legal aid compared to other countries.

Suffice it to say, those who can't afford to pay for private litigation generally get good value for money form lawyers.

In any event, there are broadly speaking three categories of people/bodies that end up paying for legal fees:

1) The other side who loses in litigation - they do not get to agree fees in advance and can't select the other side's choice of lawyers, so their only power against this is the taxing master. If they want fees to be reduced, it should be done at the taxing master level, but the taxing master is already assessing fees based on work done and reasonableness, so any change here would have to be costs taxed on a less than reasonable basis. This category is pissed off because they have to pay for someone else's lawyers.

2) The client who has money but doesn't win or doesn't recover costs - will have to pay their own fees out of their own pocket or else out of their award. They have the option to agree fees in advance. They can shop around for different solicitors. They can ask for a quote that is based on tasks or job lots, or they can look for an hourly rate. Either way, they are assessed of the risk at all times and are capable of making an informed choice as a consumer. This cannot be changed by legislation. This category is pissed off because they didn't get the result they were looking for.

3) Non litigation services / litigation with no chance of costs - perhaps the one that people complain about the most is *shock horror* when people actually have to pay for legal services to be done on their behalf and no one else will cover that cost. Examples such as conveyancing, family law, company/regulatory matters or defending a case against a litigant with little or no means to pay your costs. The trouble here is not so much the prices that are charged, so much as the fact that people see having to engage a lawyer at all as unfair. So they see conveyancing as a simple paper pushing exercise, and fail to see why they need representation in the family law courts etc etc. This group is pissed off because they want to be able to do it themselves or get it done without any charge.

So I suppose the unifying theme is that people are pissed off that lawyers have to be paid generally, and this manifests itself as wanting to reduce the amount of money that they get.

Ultimately though, legal services are further complicated by the fact that they are an irrational good. That is to say, demand and price for any given lawyer often travel in the same direction. High priced lawyers are often seen as inherently better than those who offer the same service at a lower rate. The perception is that a solicitor who charges €500 an hour and a senior counsel that charges a brief fee of €20,000 are obviously at the top of their game and therefore are better than solicitors that charge €150 per hour and seniors who charge brief fees of €5,000. Thus, despite the general belief that lawyers are earning too much, when any individual requires a lawyer, they will often perfer to go to someone who charges higher fees rather than someone who offers better value for money.

So we're back to square one that consumers should be the ones imposing downward pressure on fees but there is often a disincentive to offer reduced fees.

FreudianSlippers

32minutes wrote: »

I would respectfully disagree with this, at the minute the push for reform might be more to do with "optics" than substantive reform but there are real issues that people would like to see solved.

Firstly legal services is perceived as being too expensive, although I think this can get tangled up with a misconception that this is due to lawyers making huge sums of money. I think the marketplace is hugely expensive to operate in and it doesn't matter how many solicitors the equality authority thinks that the country needs, they'll all be expensive/unemployed unless the high fixed/variable expenses within the legal sector are really addressed such as PII, court services charges, practicing certificates and cost of training. This might sound like I'm trying to reduce overheads and make lawyers more money but the fact is if you do this AND increase competition (by sorting out qualification routes) then prices for the consumer in the marketplace will come down via competition, if marketplace prices come down then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure their legal expenses come down too by more effective tendering and hard bargaining over tribunal costs.

The second main problem is that the legal process is seen as taking too long. especially in the criminal courts. Unless you buy into the conspiracy theory that lawyers are collectively creating this issue by dragging out cases to charge more fees then this is a more difficult problem to solve. People will never be happy with the speed of cases but it does appear that in this country, in some cases the speed is worryingly slow and people have experiences of unmotivated solicitors dragging their heels or disorganized who don't help in this area. Again I think some of the government reforms in this area are misguided. Fusing the professions, chambers, more competition won't help, or at least they definitely won't help until the courts service is seen to reform first. Much better case management systems, introduction of IT systems and an increase in the sitting terms for the lower courts especially would do much more to speed up the process than some superficial overhaul of the legal profession IMO, but then again these things cost money.

The gown/wig debate is obviously a cheap piece to score political/media points so I don't really have an opinion on that.

Overall punishing the legal profession is not going to help anyone in the long term and if the government is serious about reform then they should keep their eye on the ball and not get distracted by playing to sensationalism and making it an adversarial reform with-hunt.

I genuinely believe that a lot people are beginning to understand that not everyone in the legal profession is a tribunal SC coining it or a millionaire solicitor so if they try to make real reforms and explain their actions to people I think there's a good chance that it could be good for the consumer AND the profession long term.

i would also add one short thing; the lack of competition that the equality authority speaks of is more to do with lack of solicitor practices not solicitors and as long as the current system of qualifying and very high setup costs for solicitors remains, even a huge explosion in the number of solicitors wouldn't fix this as the current system makes it very difficult for a solicitor to setup independently, I think this could also help with younger barristers as more, smaller independent solicitor offices are going to create a better market for barristers

I would agree with you on this, my point is merely that this feels very rushed. It feels like reform for the sake of reform and lacks any substance.

The problems are systemic and this is a plaster; a plaster which will fail and/or cause more problems than it's worth.

Want reform? Work with the sector and investigate what and where the problems are for 6 months to a year and then come up with a detailed report and plan for how to fix them.

That's all I'm really saying.

Avatargh

One point that may be overlooked here a little is that - I assume - no-one is going to be interfering with what a lawyer may charge his or her client if that is agreed. Rather, the issue is with the quantum of costs which may be awarded against the losing side in litigation and the potential scaling of those costs or the potential disallowing of certain matters. Maybe I'm very wrong, but I don't see the State actually saying "this is what you are allowed charged a client" but I can see the State saying "well, in other countries you might not even get your costs, so from now on, the measure of awardable costs isn't what it used to be". Sure, we've already got precedent for this in planning cases.

Edit: Oh, wait...johnnyskeleton said all that.

dammit

johnnyskeleton

Interesting article from Carol Coulter in the Irish Times yesterday, the start of a few days worth of specials on the legal profession. She is one of the few journalists who is impartial on the legal profession, as seen by her performance on the Vincent Brown show a few weeks ago.

Flaws in the law: fixing the legal system

...
Can the proposed legal-services Bill address the structural problems in our legal system and stem the growing cynicism about it? Can it ensure we have a legal system that guarantees access to justice for all citizens, irrespective of their wealth or position in society, and ensures that society and the economy function properly?

The crisis in the legal system is real, though much of the comment on it is uninformed.

...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0917/1224304249214.html

Good to see her calling for informed debate.

Among its main recommendations were an independent legal-services commission with overall responsibility for regulating the legal profession and the market for legal services; abolition of the King’s Inns’ and the Law Society’s control of professional legal training; direct access to barristers for legal advice for members of the public; allowing barristers to form partnerships with each other and with other professionals; easier transfer between the two branches of the profession; a transparent system of setting fees for both branches of the profession; the ending of the solicitors’ lien, which prevents clients moving to another solicitor without paying the first; and the introduction of a profession of specialist conveyancers, to bring down the price and increase the quality of service in conveyancing.

She rejects the proposals in respect of the new profession of conveyancer and permitting other institutions to provide legal education as superflous at present. While they certainly seem less relevant now than they were in 2006 when the report was first published, I wonder is there any benefit to these proposals?

First of all, if people could be trained better or cheaper in other colleges then I suppose it is a good thing, irrespective of how it will not significantly impact the numbers entering the professions.

As regards conveyancers as a discrete profession, if this could permit solicitors to distance themselves from conveyancing for insurance purposes, that would be of significant benefit to litigation only type firms as it would seriously reduce their overheads.

However, many of the other proposals – transparency in the services provided and the fees charged; requiring solicitors to facilitate clients switching to another solicitor by releasing their files; allowing barristers offer advice to members of the public, form partnerships and represent employers in court; and tackling the practice of setting junior counsel’s fees at two-thirds of those of a senior (even though the Bar Council has abolished the rule) – are likely to feature in the legal-services Bill.

This appears to be shaping up as the route that will most likely be followed.

They could make the legal system more affordable and accessible. Or they could concentrate legal expertise in the hands of big firms and drive many of those who offer a service to the public out of the legal profession.

Excellent. This is a risk that the politicians and a lot of the media and commentators seem to be either oblivious to or to be deliberately obscuring. If this is done wrong, they are only going to make the legal sector less competitive and ultimately increase the cost of litigation. But I suppose they won't mind so long as lawyers get a kicking.

On the changes to the barristers profession, I don't see how the mechanics of this will operate. Will they force the Bar Council to change its ways by legislation? What if the Law Library starts to call itself a chambers with the rule that if you are a member you cannot be a member of any other chambers as well? That would solve the chambers issue. And equally, what is to stop any chambers or the law library from imposing their own rules that they can't advise clients directly. If any given lawyer decides they don't want to deal with X client or X type of client, then that is their choice, no?

bath handle

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

This is ill thought out for two reasons or, more accurately, two assumptions you make:-

(1) you assume that other institutions who may (if permitted) run competing programs would staff them with non-practitioners. Given that a new set-up would, most likely, be trying to compete with incumbents, its as reasonable to assume that another institution may hire part-time staff to delivery professional practice courses.

(2) you assume that the academic environment is staffed by academics without, I assume, a practice background. Again, that's just a rubbish assumption when some institutions have practitioner staff.

Further, just because the monopoly on education could be taken from the Law Society and the King's Inns doesn't mean that there won't be a centrally set syllabus / set of standards. Perhaps that would require, for example, modules to be delivered by practitioners for an institution to be permitted to deliver the course.

You might be right in saying "having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster", but its hardly a point worth making.

johnnyskeleton

Irrespective of the quality of the education, which is of lesser imporrtance as a lawyer gains practical experience anyway, if the cost and time out of office to become a solicitor is reduced, is this not an incentive ( less disincentive) to firms taking on apprentices.

Equally, isn't the possibility that a new barrister could start with 5k less debt a lessening of the barrier to entry created by high fees and small earnings in the first few years?

That is, assuming thr new courses are actually cheaper, a big assumption in Ireland.

Avatargh

Yes, saving money on education would assist in removal of barrier to entry, but I can't see that kind of saving based on the following assumptions.

(1) If there is a single education regulator for "lawyers" (i.e. fuse professions), then it remains you still have two physical locations in Dublin with staff and infrastructure who will want to deliver the courses. Thus, the Dublin market would be pretty much taken.

(2) The cost of entry would be quite high. Assuming that the education would be on par with the BL or PPC, one needs to pay the capital cost of material preparation as well as pay the vast array of part-time staff taken on for these things. Like, if one assumes that the KI do, in fact, run a good course and that whatever "state-set" course would be somewhat similar to it - its not something that can be laid on for cheap. Sure, one could save here and there on wages and so on, but not in any substantial sense that renders the whole enterprise significantly cheaper.

(3) After entry, the cost of competition would be high. I assume a new entrant needs to have a "gimmick" that the incumbents wouldn't have such as online lectures or something like that - again, more cost. And to compete with the "classic" institutions (LS and KI), one would need good price competition, so the new competitor is already looking at massive capital injection, ongoing high revenue outlay and having to undercut the competitor and, I assume, deliver a better quality product.

I'm in no way against this - anyone who is able to deliver whatever the professional course requires should be permitted to deliver it. I just don't really see that there is massive incentive or money there for an institution to lump in the capital investment as well as as ongoing staffing just to try and get a slice of the pie (i.e. there is no point talking about taking the market entirely from the KI and LS; at best, I'd guess, there will be a 30-40% slice available).

I imagine someone might be able to make something of a go of it in the West/Cork and cater to the market for whom Dublin may be too far to travel, but the sheer cost involved as against the not-really-great income from it would, I think, scare off a UCG/UCC or similar institution when pretty similar fees could be charged for simply starting up an LLM or similar Masters (see NUIM for example) without all the hassle of professional ed.

bath handle

Avatargh wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

The training issue had some relevance when the professional bodies limited the numbers allowed to qualify. the whole object of the professional bodies being involved in training is to provide a transition between the academic environment and actual practice. having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster.

This is ill thought out for two reasons or, more accurately, two assumptions you make:-

(1) you assume that other institutions who may (if permitted) run competing programs would staff them with non-practitioners. Given that a new set-up would, most likely, be trying to compete with incumbents, its as reasonable to assume that another institution may hire part-time staff to delivery professional practice courses.

(2) you assume that the academic environment is staffed by academics without, I assume, a practice background. Again, that's just a rubbish assumption when some institutions have practitioner staff.

Further, just because the monopoly on education could be taken from the Law Society and the King's Inns doesn't mean that there won't be a centrally set syllabus / set of standards. Perhaps that would require, for example, modules to be delivered by practitioners for an institution to be permitted to deliver the course.

You might be right in saying "having student lawyers receive all of their education and training from academics would be a disaster", but its hardly a point worth making.

I am not making any assumptions. A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.
Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors. As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.
The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.
At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

I am not making any assumptions.

Right...ok.

bath handle wrote: »

A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.

Assumption no.1. A "small add on".

bath handle wrote: »

Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors.

Assumption no.2. You assume that whatever rules held for full-time hires would be continued to be applied fn a practice course was started.

You assume that a university would say "oh ok, lets start a practice course, but lets stick with that policy that we don't hire practitioners" when you could assume that a university may say "well, that policy is fine for our full-time staff, but since we're branching out here, we shouldn't apply it for the practice course". You choose to assume the most irrational response that a college would have to a practice-course set up.

bath handle wrote: »

As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.

Assumption no.3. You assume that such control is intended to be part of whatever system we end up. What is the basis for assuming that the existing professional bodies would continue to have an oversight rule? Isn't that precisely what may change? If the courses are set and requirements set by a single state institution and not the current professional bodies, then any university wanting to run such a course would have to follow the single centralised methodology.

bath handle wrote: »

The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

bath handle wrote: »

At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

On what basis would there likely be a much higher failure rate? They will charge what the market will stand? Well, what is wrong what that? Isn't that the POINT here - that the market is not competitive and thus with the opening of competing educational routes, the market - with competition - should yield results? I personally don't believe that will happen for reasons outlined above, but I'm making this point here really by way of counter to some of your more nonsensical modes of reasoning.

bath handle

Avatargh wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

I am not making any assumptions.

Right...ok.

bath handle wrote: »

A practice course would be a small add on to a law faculty, itself a small add on to a bigger institution.

Assumption no.1. A "small add on".

bath handle wrote: »

Many of the universities have introduced a no practice rule and whatever about getting part time barristers they will not be able to get part time solicitors.

Assumption no.2. You assume that whatever rules held for full-time hires would be continued to be applied fn a practice course was started.

You assume that a university would say "oh ok, lets start a practice course, but lets stick with that policy that we don't hire practitioners" when you could assume that a university may say "well, that policy is fine for our full-time staff, but since we're branching out here, we shouldn't apply it for the practice course". You choose to assume the most irrational response that a college would have to a practice-course set up.

bath handle wrote: »

As fro professional bodies being able to exercise any kind of control over universities, it just won't happen.

Assumption no.3. You assume that such control is intended to be part of whatever system we end up. What is the basis for assuming that the existing professional bodies would continue to have an oversight rule? Isn't that precisely what may change? If the courses are set and requirements set by a single state institution and not the current professional bodies, then any university wanting to run such a course would have to follow the single centralised methodology.

bath handle wrote: »

The trainee lawyers would be hanging around a college campus, mingling with students from other disciplines and other courses, not simmering themselves in the professional environment.

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

bath handle wrote: »

At the moment senior members of the profession have a direct input into training. If the colleges take over, that will be the end of it.
it could end up with the professional bodies setting the syllabus and exams and the trainees doing the course in colleges. The result would likely be a much higher failure rate. The courses would be used as a cash cow by the colleges. They will charge what the market will stand.

On what basis would there likely be a much higher failure rate? They will charge what the market will stand? Well, what is wrong what that? Isn't that the POINT here - that the market is not competitive and thus with the opening of competing educational routes, the market - with competition - should yield results? I personally don't believe that will happen for reasons outlined above, but I'm making this point here really by way of counter to some of your more nonsensical modes of reasoning.

The proposal is that the professional bodies stop teaching and take on a vetting/standards role. What state body would have the ability to decide on appropriate training for professionals?
The colleges are all short of money. Any opportunity to turn a profit be taken. It is naive to suggest there will be price war.

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Assumption no.4. Right...ok...that's just beyond ridiculous. Even forgetting the assumption that mingling is a bad thing, you proceed on the necessary logic that the alternative incumbent position involves "simmering themselves in the professional environment" which would be lost on a change in method which is, again, rubbish as there is no basis for that assumption.

Whatever about anything elsei found this "simmering" to be one of the most important parts of blackhall. It might have been different in cork but there was just a different feel to the place compared to my time in UCC which was less than 1km away. Maybe it is an assumption but it's not exactly too wide of the mark really...

Avatargh

bath handle wrote: »

The proposal is that the professional bodies stop teaching and take on a vetting/standards role. What state body would have the ability to decide on appropriate training for professionals?
The colleges are all short of money. Any opportunity to turn a profit be taken. It is naive to suggest there will be price war.

Maybe then read what I said. I asked what is wrong with charging what the market stands and I also said my own view (for reasons outlined above) is that there won't be serious competition on price given entry costs.

As for the proposal "is". Fine. We'll wait and see.

Avatargh

shaneybaby wrote: »

Whatever about anything elsei found this "simmering" to be one of the most important parts of blackhall. It might have been different in cork but there was just a different feel to the place compared to my time in UCC which was less than 1km away. Maybe it is an assumption but it's not exactly too wide of the mark really...

Ok, but how would a professional course delivered in another institution be any different? You could have the same classes together with the same group of people? You could have the same tutorials grouped with the same people? There isn't much sense to a notion that the actual course delivery would be mixed with other pre-existing courses.

The only difference would be that there would be "other" people around in the sense of the general student body? Or that the particular venue such as (UCG, TCD etc) has some sort of innate problem that isn't suitable to professional education?

What essential quality of "simmering" is necessarily and inexorably lost by the delivery of a course at an alternative venue?

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Ok, but how would a professional course delivered in another institution be any different? You could have the same classes together with the same group of people? You could have the same tutorials grouped with the same people? There isn't much sense to a notion that the actual course delivery would be mixed with other pre-existing courses.

The only difference would be that there would be "other" people around in the sense of the general student body? Or that the particular venue such as (UCG, TCD etc) has some sort of innate problem that isn't suitable to professional education?

What essential quality of "simmering" is necessarily and inexorably lost by the delivery of a course at an alternative venue?

I don't know. all i'm saying is that the attitude of both staff and students in PPC1 was completely different to that of the University i attended. I spent a bit of time in the army and there were more similarities in PPC1 (in terms of atmosphere) with the cadet course than with any time i spent in University. Size of classes had nothing to do with it as all the classes were within 10 students of each other.

Avatargh

shaneybaby wrote: »

I don't know. all i'm saying is that the attitude of both staff and students in PPC1 was completely different to that of the University i attended. I spent a bit of time in the army and there were more similarities in PPC1 (in terms of atmosphere) with the cadet course than with any time i spent in University. Size of classes had nothing to do with it as all the classes were within 10 students of each other.

Granted. So, the assumption that a university venue would create issues depends on the assumption that a pro-course at a university venue would be run in the same way as an undergraduate course.

Yes, PPC1 is completely different as is the BL degree, so a university teaching them would have to react to that difference and teach the course in a manner reflective of its requirements.

Its pointless to say the atmosphere in university is different to the professional courses because when you were university you weren't doing a professional course. Of course the attitudes were different because they were different courses. The point here is that universities could be free to run a professional course and it would stand to reason that it would be run in a manner needed to secure the licence to do so - i.e. not with the same style, attitude, socratic method etc that attends undergraduate or some post-graduate courses.

One can't simply compare simply two different courses/syllabi taught in two different venues and conclude that one venue would be incapable of teaching a different course!

shaneybaby

Avatargh wrote: »

Granted. So, the assumption that a university venue would create issues depends on the assumption that a pro-course at a university venue would be run in the same way as an undergraduate course.

Yes, PPC1 is completely different as is the BL degree, so a university teaching them would have to react to that difference and teach the course in a manner reflective of its requirements.

Its pointless to say the atmosphere in university is different to the professional courses because when you were university you weren't doing a professional course. Of course the attitudes were different because they were different courses. The point here is that universities could be free to run a professional course and it would stand to reason that it would be run in a manner needed to secure the licence to do so - i.e. not with the same style, attitude, socratic method etc that attends undergraduate or some post-graduate courses.

One can't simply compare simply two different courses/syllabi taught in two different venues and conclude that one venue would be incapable of teaching a different course!

So you're saying having the students of a professional course in the same venue (note the italics) as undergraduates would not have any effect whatsoever on the they way they act and the way the converse outside the classroom?

No.2

Carol Coulter has some interesting points on legal costs in today's Irish Times (last of the series on 'the law in crisis'):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0922/1224304520482.html

Editorial also on reform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0922/1224304521168.html

dermot_sheehan

No.2 wrote: »

Carol Coulter has some interesting points on legal costs in today's Irish Times (last of the series on 'the law in crisis'):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0922/1224304520482.html

Editorial also on reform:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0922/1224304521168.html

Todays. Irish times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0926/1224304755660.html

Avatargh

I can't wait to have to pay my law library fees (say €5k), plus this new "levy" (pharmacies are about €3k...so assuming around that), plus having to deal with the possibility that insurance companies will take the view that if we can deal with the public, then we are dealing with the public and watching insurance shoot up unreasonably to about €5k a year. Yay.

I'm not really sure how any of this will reduce costs. One can't just "absorb" increases in the costs of running a business like this without passing it on. Of course, if I pass it on, and my fees are so high that I perish in the market - so be it. I am, however, having trouble to see how anyone is really just going to absorb these increases.

I may be overly pessimistic about insurance, but I can really see companies fidgeting with premiums if they get a whiff that MDP's may exist (even if they don't actually take off). From what I hear, no companies really gave two cents if a particular solicitor never had a claim against him, or was practising in a particular way that meant he never held client money, so I am a bit worried about this.

NoQuarter

Any updates on the legislation? Wasnt it due through parliament this week?

FreudianSlippers

NoQuarter wrote: »

Any updates on the legislation? Wasnt it due through parliament this week?

Tuesday I think!