How is the legal system financed in Ireland?

experiMental

How is the national legal system financed?

Given the state of current affairs and the costs of servicing tribunals and judgements, the country could go broke - yet somehow this is not happening.

hfallada

Its paid for out of our tax system like it has been for several hundred years. Some of its is obviously partly financed from when people have to pay court fees. It varies from country to country. I think its interesting how in Ferguson, Mo. how court fees and court fines are used to finance over 20% of the cities budget. The court system in Ferguson issues more arrest warrants than it has residents. This video outlines this: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003112053/stacked-with-warrants.html

johnnyskeleton

experiMental wrote: »

How is the national legal system financed?

Given the state of current affairs and the costs of servicing tribunals and judgements, the country could go broke - yet somehow this is not happening.

Having a legal system is one of the most basic, if not the most basic, functions of a state. Even extreme tea party "libertarian" types believe in some form of legal system being paud for by taxes.

Put another way, a world class heath system is not going to avail you if there is no one to protect you from violence while walking down the street!

realitykeeper

The legal system is unnecessarily expensive in this country.

1.) For one thing, free legal aid should only be free if the defendant is found to be not guilty.

2.) The state should refrain from using a small number of legal firms and instead they should shop around like everyone else and only hire legal representatives on a no win no fee basis. By spending less on legal representation, the state would reduce the cost to everyone else because that will have a de-heating effect in the legal profession.

3.) Public bodies like the HSE should be prohibited from seeking legal advice or representation when they are dealing with another state entity such as a tribunal of inquiry.

4.) The legislators should guard against self serving lobbying from the legal profession. For example, when buying a property, the rule of thumb used to be buyer beware. Now they have changed it so that the buyer can pursue the seller after the sale if they discover something they are not happy with. This will create business for the legal profession but at a cost to the buyer and/or seller which did not exist before. In other words, if you take the nations buyers and sellers as a collective entity, together that group of people face a new cost because either the buyer or the seller will lose the case and that person would have to pay the legal fees. If legal costs are split, they both pay. Added to that is the fact that it makes the legal profession more expensive because the lawyers are more occupied and less available because of artificially created work like this.

Manach

Part of the reason for the expense might be the way the profession is organised.
Instead of a system akin to the US (many states, have a qualification and pass an exam, join the legal association and ready to practice), there is a lengthy and expensive apprentice system for people who wish to work in various areas of the law. Whilst this does provide very experienced professionals, it does add to the cost of hiring such - directly or indirectly.

johnnyskeleton

realitykeeper wrote: »

The legal system is unnecessarily expensive in this country.

Compared to where, or just as a general assertion?

1.) For one thing, free legal aid should only be free if the defendant is found to be not guilty.

You intrigue me. So how do we tell in advance who is going to be found not guilty? Or do you expect lawyers to act on the off chance of an acquittal? Plus, the legal aid cost pales in comparison to the massive cost in garda and court time as no one would ever plead guilty.

2.) The state should refrain from using a small number of legal firms and instead they should shop around like everyone else and only hire legal representatives on a no win no fee basis. By spending less on legal representation, the state would reduce the cost to everyone else because that will have a de-heating effect in the legal profession.

For litigation they usually use the chief state and chief prosecution solicitors offices, and occasionally competitively tender for other work. No lawyer would work for the state on a no foal no fee basis because the state lose as many cases as they win!

3.) Public bodies like the HSE should be prohibited from seeking legal advice or representation when they are dealing with another state entity such as a tribunal of inquiry.

There are some instances of strange inter departmental waste by way of litigation, but surely each body must take legal advice from time to time? In any event, the solution here would be not to limit different departmental budgets, or else have an inter departmental arbitration service (another quango, not clear whether its cost would be less than legal fees at present).

4.) The legislators should guard against self serving lobbying from the legal profession. For example, when buying a property, the rule of thumb used to be buyer beware. Now they have changed it so that the buyer can pursue the seller after the sale if they discover something they are not happy with. This will create business for the legal profession but at a cost to the buyer and/or seller which did not exist before. In other words, if you take the nations buyers and sellers as a collective entity, together that group of people face a new cost because either the buyer or the seller will lose the case and that person would have to pay the legal fees. If legal costs are split, they both pay. Added to that is the fact that it makes the legal profession more expensive because the lawyers are more occupied and less available because of artificially created work like this.

Thats not something that is in any way based on reality at all im afraid. A private vendor cannot be sued for not making title after a sale. A builder can be sued for certain defects in building a house etc, but that is because you can only establish a quality build before signing a contract if you have access to a good surveyor and a time machine.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Part of the reason for the expense might be the way the profession is organised.
Instead of a system akin to the US (many states, have a qualification and pass an exam, join the legal association and ready to practice), there is a lengthy and expensive apprentice system for people who wish to work in various areas of the law. Whilst this does provide very experienced professionals, it does add to the cost of hiring such - directly or indirectly.

Hmm...

Cost of qualifying in the USA (say New York)
3 year undergrad in ivy league or good state school - $120k
Law school 2/4 years $70-150k
Bar exams $250-750
Total cost = over 200k
Total time taken as unpaid student: 6-8 years
Plus interest on loans

cost of qualifying in ireland (solicitor)
Undergrad - about 2-3k registration fees pa by 3-4 years so say 12k
FE1 exams - c 1.2k, can take a year
Law society - usually paid for by employer 2/3 years, apprentices usually also paid a salary
Total cost = c. 15k
Total time unpaid c4/5 years

cost of qualifying in ireland (barrister]
Undergrad law (as above) plus 1 year kings inns 12.5k and .5k for entranfe exams.
Total cost = c25k
Total time as a student 4/6 years. Unpaid/low paid apprenticeship 1/2 years.

So again there seems to be an analysis of the legal profession that is based on incorrect information. And yes, legal fees in the USA make Irish legal fees seem like peanuts

realitykeeper

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or do you expect lawyers to act on the off chance of an acquittal? Plus, the legal aid cost pales in comparison to the massive cost in garda and court time as no one would ever plead guilty.

The answer to your first question is no. The guilty can have the payments stopped from their salary or benefits. The lawyers would have to contain costs if they were doubtful that the guilty could pay a high price. Plus, if someone is going to plead guilty, they won`t need a lawyer. If they hire a lawyer and plead guilty anyway the charge would be small so the lawyer would have no problem getting payment.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For litigation they usually use the chief state and chief prosecution solicitors offices, and occasionally competitively tender for other work. No lawyer would work for the state on a no foal no fee basis because the state lose as many cases as they win!

There is no need for chief state and chief prosecution solicitors. Like I say they should shop around. The legal profession offer no win no fee services to everyone else and the state is just another customer. Discrimination against the state is against the law.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There are some instances of strange inter departmental waste by way of litigation, but surely each body must take legal advice from time to time? In any event, the solution here would be not to limit different departmental budgets, or else have an inter departmental arbitration service (another quango, not clear whether its cost would be less than legal fees at present).

The taxpayer pays for public entities. The quest for truth should not be a taxable commodity when public entities interact with each other. It would be like one branch of Dunnes stores taking legal action against another! Such stupidity has no place in the real world so why should it exist at the tax payers expense.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thats not something that is in any way based on reality at all im afraid. A private vendor cannot be sued for not making title after a sale. A builder can be sued for certain defects in building a house etc, but that is because you can only establish a quality build before signing a contract if you have access to a good surveyor and a time machine.

Fair enough but the core point still holds. Some laws probably exist which create work for the legal profession but do not serve the interests of society at large. Legislators should weed out such laws.

johnnyskeleton

realitykeeper wrote: »

The answer to your first question is no. The guilty can have the payments stopped from their salary or benefits. The lawyers would have to contain costs if they were doubtful that the guilty could pay a high price. Plus, if someone is going to plead guilty, they won`t need a lawyer. If they hire a lawyer and plead guilty anyway the charge would be small so the lawyer would have no problem getting payment.

How would the person know whether to plead guilty or not in advance without legal advice? They would still need a lawyer for thr sentencing hearing. In any event, youve moved the goalposts somewhat because you originally said hey shouldnt get legal aid but now youe saying they should but should maks a mandatory contribution towards it.

There is no need for chief state and chief prosecution solicitors. Like I say they should shop around. The legal profession offer no win no fee services to everyone else and the state is just another customer. Discrimination against the state is against the law.

No foal no fee cases are offered, typically in human rights cases or where there is a strong chance of success and rscovering costs from thr other side, and almost invariably they are offered because the person cannot otherwiae afford representation. None of those factors apply to the state, especially in criminal cases. So im afraid thr suggestion is unrealistic.

The taxpayer pays for public entities. The quest for truth should not be a taxable commodity when public entities interact with each other. It would be like one branch of Dunnes stores taking legal action against another! Such stupidity has no place in the real world so why should it exist at the tax payers expense.

Youd have to ask the government departments that im afraid. Im sure theyre aware of the fact that the taxpayer pays either way, but the reason we have internicene state litigation is because diffeent departments are treated as separate entities who monitor each other and who have different budgets. He prosecution of Wicklow County Council for breahes of health and safety law leading to the death of a fireman last year is one such waste, but clearly the hse felt it was important to establish that the council had been crkminally negligent.

In any event, saying that government departments should never fight is a bit like saying that civil wars shouldnt happen. They are both zero sum games, but they happen all the same.

Fair enough but the core point still holds. Some laws probably exist which create work for the legal profession but do not serve the interests of society at large. Legislators should weed out such laws.

Of course, as a principle, any law wguh does not serve the interests of society so that it can create work for lawyers should be weeded out. The problem is that you arent making an ought to be proposition, you are suggesting that this is the caee, but cant identify any basis for same.

Manach

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hmm...
So again there seems to be an analysis of the legal profession that is based on incorrect information. And yes, legal fees in the USA make Irish legal fees seem like peanuts

Fair enough. But ...
I remember reading Isaac Asimov once bemoaning the fact there were more lawyers than scientists in the US compared to the USSR by a significant factor. Leaving aside the societal aspects of this, the more there is of item the cheaper it has a tendency to be: Supply and Demand. The US system does seem to have the ability to produce legal professionals. The upper end of such, as mentioned, does have a higher cost than Ireland.

However, perhaps that aspect is an unsustainable model. AFAIR from reading Susskind's "Tommorrow's lawyers" there is a crisis within the Ivy leagues schools where graduates of such are struggling to recoup their return on investment. Major financial firms in metropolitan areas such as New York are reluctant to pay traditional high fees for work that can now be partially automated and partially done by lower cost firms. The Irish model, which is excellent at producing fine professions, to me is still modelled on that old bespoke system (similar to the Ivy league) of doing business and not as open to competition and new technologies. These are factors that drive down cost in most economic areas with law should not be immune to those trends by reason of its apprenticeship system which limits the numbers of professions in the system.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Fair enough. But ...
I remember reading Isaac Asimov once bemoaning the fact there were more lawyers than scientists in the US compared to the USSR by a significant factor. Leaving aside the societal aspects of this, the more there is of item the cheaper it has a tendency to be: Supply and Demand. The US system does seem to have the ability to produce legal professionals. The upper end of such, as mentioned, does have a higher cost than Ireland.

Well that's more to do with capitalism and communism than anything else. But despite having more scientists in the USSR, the USA was technologically more than a match for them. The reason there might be more lawyers than scientists is because there is more demand for lawyers than scientists. Bemoaning the fact that there are less scientists than lawyers is like bemoaning the fact that more money is spent on sports teams than on NASA.

However, perhaps that aspect is an unsustainable model. AFAIR from reading Susskind's "Tommorrow's lawyers" there is a crisis within the Ivy leagues schools where graduates of such are struggling to recoup their return on investment. Major financial firms in metropolitan areas such as New York are reluctant to pay traditional high fees for work that can now be partially automated and partially done by lower cost firms. The Irish model, which is excellent at producing fine professions, to me is still modelled on that old bespoke system (similar to the Ivy league) of doing business and not as open to competition and new technologies. These are factors that drive down cost in most economic areas with law should not be immune to those trends by reason of its apprenticeship system which limits the numbers of professions in the system.

This is all very vague. What exactly do you think is not as open to competition and new technologies? Economics is not always as simple as increasing supply reduces price. Look up "irrational goods" and you will learn that sometimes the higher the price the greater the demand.

FreudianSlippers

It's not just ivy league that aren't recouping. Law school in the US is incredibly expensive and very few are getting decent jobs. Add that to at least 60k in debt from college and many are working just to keep up with the payments.

For the flaws in the Irish system, the US is the worst comparator possible.

robp

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hmm...

Cost of qualifying in the USA (say New York)
3 year undergrad in ivy league or good state school - $120k
Law school 2/4 years $70-150k
Bar exams $250-750
Total cost = over 200k
Total time taken as unpaid student: 6-8 years
Plus interest on loans

cost of qualifying in ireland (solicitor)
Undergrad - about 2-3k registration fees pa by 3-4 years so say 12k
FE1 exams - c 1.2k, can take a year
Law society - usually paid for by employer 2/3 years, apprentices usually also paid a salary
Total cost = c. 15k
Total time unpaid c4/5 years

cost of qualifying in ireland (barrister]
Undergrad law (as above) plus 1 year kings inns 12.5k and .5k for entranfe exams.
Total cost = c25k
Total time as a student 4/6 years. Unpaid/low paid apprenticeship 1/2 years.

You are not comparing like with like. The total cost of a Irish law degree is far more than the 3k of fees. These courses are hugely subsidised by the Irish state.

johnnyskeleton

robp wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. The total cost of a Irish law degree is far more than the 3k of fees. These courses are hugely subsidised by the Irish state.

Of course but thats not what we were discussing above. He was suggesting that it is more expensive for an individual to qualify as a lawyer here than in the states, hence irish legal fees are assertedly higher. I was demonstrating how that was not the case. The macro economic cost of educating a person is not really the issue (even still, at full irish fees its a lot cheaper and slghtly quicker than the usa)

realitykeeper

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How would the person know whether to plead guilty or not in advance without legal advice? They would still need a lawyer for thr sentencing hearing. In any event, youve moved the goalposts somewhat because you originally said hey shouldnt get legal aid but now youe saying they should but should maks a mandatory contribution towards it.



No foal no fee cases are offered, typically in human rights cases or where there is a strong chance of success and rscovering costs from thr other side, and almost invariably they are offered because the person cannot otherwiae afford representation. None of those factors apply to the state, especially in criminal cases. So im afraid thr suggestion is unrealistic.



Youd have to ask the government departments that im afraid. Im sure theyre aware of the fact that the taxpayer pays either way, but the reason we have internicene state litigation is because diffeent departments are treated as separate entities who monitor each other and who have different budgets. He prosecution of Wicklow County Council for breahes of health and safety law leading to the death of a fireman last year is one such waste, but clearly the hse felt it was important to establish that the council had been crkminally negligent.

In any event, saying that government departments should never fight is a bit like saying that civil wars shouldnt happen. They are both zero sum games, but they happen all the same.



Of course, as a principle, any law wguh does not serve the interests of society so that it can create work for lawyers should be weeded out. The problem is that you arent making an ought to be proposition, you are suggesting that this is the caee, but cant identify any basis for same.

In a typical whodunnit, the guilty would know they are guilty (unless they were sleep walking at the time) and they don`t need a lawyer to tell them what they already know.

I did not say the guilty should make a contribution to the cost of their defense. I said they should be liable to pay it in full. If they can`t the lawyer will not be paid. If no lawyer were prepared to represent a particular individual, the courts should have the right to appoint a lawyer on a probono basis and the lawyer would be required to comply in return for the right to continue practicing law.

I disagree with your assertion that the state is able to pay. The country has a debt of well over 200 billion euro and it is running a deficit. As long as the country is in debt, the legal profession should be required to represent the state on a no win no fee basis. Otherwise the practice of no win no fee should be outlawed altogether. That would help reduce the amount of litigation going on and it would put downward pressure on legal costs for everyone.

If the HSE do insist on availing of legal services against another state entity, then the law should be that the service must be provided free of charge or not at all. Needless to say, law firms would then decline the hse request and that would solve that. The HSE would then have to deal with the matter without legal assistance.

I am making an ought to be proposition. Legislators should actively seek to dismantle the costs associated with the legal profession both for the consumer and the tax payer. There are ways and means of doing this, although an increasingly heavy handed approach would probably be required in order to overcome resistance from the lawyers. The state has some blunt instruments at its disposal. For example, it now controls judges salaries. So if the judges cannot find a way of interpreting the law in ways which benefit the consumer and taxpayer over the lawyers - then that poor performance on the part of judges could be reflected in their salaries being cut.

Pat Mustard

realitykeeper wrote: »

The state should refrain from using a small number of legal firms and instead they should shop around like everyone else

The HSE confirmed to TheJournal.ie that yearly legal spending figures are:
2012 - €46,735m
2011 - €35,966m
2010 - €40,599m
2009 - €44,574m
2008 – €36,618m

Looking at this article, the HSE spent €204,492,000 during the five year period from 2008 to 2012 (inclusive).

60-65% percent of this cost is in relation to childcare services:

The HSE said the bulk of its legal costs were incurred in relation to its childcare services, about 60-65 per cent. The HSE is legally obliged to go to the High Court whenever a court order is needed to take a child into care.

If we take the 2012 figure of €46,735,000, if 60-56% of that was spent on legal fees for childcare services, that is an approximate figure of between €28,041,000 and €30,377.750 spent on legal fees during 2012. My understanding is that those fees go to a handful of firms who carry out this work for the HSE. I have no idea if there is a competitive tender for this work, but it seems to me that this small number of firms are being paid an extremely large amount of money for their services. Instead of squandering taxpayers money in this way, surely the HSE could:
a. Get a better deal on fees, and,
b. Only take legal action where necessary and therefore save costs.

As matters stand, the HSE is extremely litigious, and will contest many matters to the absolute maximum in order to avoid the scantest of reasons for criticism. This is all very expensive. The HSE can afford to be flaithulach because it's spending taxpayer's money, and there will be more of that in each successive budget.

Apart from legal costs for childcare services, apparently the State Claims Agency's 'defend and deny' policy is also costing the taxpayer dearly, when it comes to defence of medical negligence claims on behalf of the HSE. The State Claims Agency denies that this policy even exists. See Law Society Gazette Article (April 2014) reproduced here.

FreudianSlippers

realitykeeper wrote: »

In a typical whodunnit, the guilty would know they are guilty (unless they were sleep walking at the time) and they don`t need a lawyer to tell them what they already know.

I did not say the guilty should make a contribution to the cost of their defense. I said they should be liable to pay it in full. If they can`t the lawyer will not be paid. If no lawyer were prepared to represent a particular individual, the courts should have the right to appoint a lawyer on a probono basis and the lawyer would be required to comply in return for the right to continue practicing law.

I disagree with your assertion that the state is able to pay. The country has a debt of well over 200 billion euro and it is running a deficit. As long as the country is in debt, the legal profession should be required to represent the state on a no win no fee basis. Otherwise the practice of no win no fee should be outlawed altogether. That would help reduce the amount of litigation going on and it would put downward pressure on legal costs for everyone.

If the HSE do insist on availing of legal services against another state entity, then the law should be that the service must be provided free of charge or not at all. Needless to say, law firms would then decline the hse request and that would solve that. The HSE would then have to deal with the matter without legal assistance.

I am making an ought to be proposition. Legislators should actively seek to dismantle the costs associated with the legal profession both for the consumer and the tax payer. There are ways and means of doing this, although an increasingly heavy handed approach would probably be required in order to overcome resistance from the lawyers. The state has some blunt instruments at its disposal. For example, it now controls judges salaries. So if the judges cannot find a way of interpreting the law in ways which benefit the consumer and taxpayer over the lawyers - then that poor performance on the part of judges could be reflected in their salaries being cut.

Wow. I'm not really sure where to start when fundamental concepts are not understood.

Firstly, I suppose, is the question of 'guilt' - there is a super-over-simplification of the concept in your post. If you want a prime example, check out the Oscar Pistorius trial. You may be tried for murder, but in western countries you have a presumption of innocence (look it up); the state has to make its case against you. You're suggesting a barbaric system of nonsense where people are presumed guilty and should not be afforded reasonable legal representation.

Secondly, let's live in your dystopian future for a second, are you suggesting that if you're tried for murder and you did kill the person, but it was self-defence, that you should just accept that you are guilty of murder and face the punishment (presuming in this Judge Dredd world you envisage that it's death). No, you may have a perfectly valid excuse for the homicide Mr Poor Man, but tough cookies mate... no legal representation.

As for "no win no fee" - it's not as simple as that. Many solicitors will waive their fee in certain circumstances, but it doesn't mean you will get off without paying. There are court costs and costs also follow the event in civil cases, so you may not have to pay your solicitor but you will have to pay the other side's solicitor

Godge

The Mustard wrote: »

I have no idea if there is a competitive tender for this work, but it seems to me that this small number of firms are being paid an extremely large amount of money for their services. Instead of squandering taxpayers money in this way, surely the HSE could:
a. Get a better deal on fees, and,
b. Only take legal action where necessary and therefore save costs.

.

From a quick search of the e-tenders site, there appear to be about 15-20 current tenders for legal services of various kinds, ranging from debt collection to legal advice etc.

The HSE have tendered at least once:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/top-legal-firms-60m-hse-deal-heads-for-courts-26607916.html

Finally, cost isn't everything when it comes to legal advice. I would rather pay more money for a good lawyer than 20% less money for a bad lawyer.

Pat Mustard

Godge wrote: »

From a quick search of the e-tenders site, there appear to be about 15-20 current tenders for legal services of various kinds, ranging from debt collection to legal advice etc.

The HSE have tendered at least once:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/top-legal-firms-60m-hse-deal-heads-for-courts-26607916.html

Finally, cost isn't everything when it comes to legal advice. I would rather pay more money for a good lawyer than 20% less money for a bad lawyer.

I would rather spend a lot of money on a good lawyer, for good advice, than spend an obscene amount of money on a good lawyer, for the same advice.

Godge

The Mustard wrote: »

I would rather spend a lot of money on a good lawyer, for good advice, than spend an obscene amount of money on a good lawyer, for the same advice.

But you have no evidence that money was wasted.

Pat Mustard

Godge wrote: »

But you have no evidence that money was wasted.

I don't have evidence that I can put up here. No.

Money well spent, then.