Herbert Smith Freehills kicked off QASA judicial review after high costs proposal

  • Print
  • Comments (17)

Readers' comments (17)

  • Greed

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How come they wanted so much money? Surely they would have been hired on the basis that they would get legal aid rates like everyone else? The rates are perfectly fair and designed to make sure that litigants get competent representation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 400k for top flight rep against Dinah Rose and baker and Mackenzie for a JR seems on the cheap side, surely?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "400k for top flight rep against Dinah Rose and baker and Mackenzie for a JR seems on the cheap side, surely?"

    Are you a trainee by any chance?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why hasn't the work been put out to competitive tender?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So when FFW advise that they're going to budget at £375k and the LSB think that's a bit steep will they be touting this around like like a slightly rank kipper?

    Despite the obvious humour, I wonder why they haven't, in the new dynamic model found a CMC who could sign them up to a quality solicitors / ABS on a CFA, after all isn't it all about plurality and value for money?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An ideal opportunity for the BSB to prove the worth of one of their approved Plea-only Advocates goes begging.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Greedy Herbert Smith obviously saw the LSB coming - £400,000 for a two-day JR hearing? Who are they kidding? And the LSB, no doubt confident that they would simply recoup the money from practitioners, win or lose, simply said 'that's fine'. One might think that the LSB might have had a little more savvy when it came to selecting legal service providers. Having been told by Ouseley J that £400,000 was OTT, they sack Herbert Smith and find solicitors at more reasonable rates. Still a king's ransom to the criminal legal aid lawyer, who will no doubt end up footing the bill win or lose. The LSB and Herbert Smith ought to be equally ashamed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • £400k for a two day hearing!?? That's 10 years income for most criminal barristers even senior ones. To defend a scheme which is unnecessary and not in the public interest. Crazy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I can express no surprise at such decisions coming from a regulatory body which has so contemptuously ignored the consensus of its constituency on this issue that the barristers who used to prosecute on its behalf are now, very visibly, resigning. The CBA has tried, repeatedly, to persuade the BSB of the corrosive nature of QASA and to propose constructive alternatives; it has been met with an obdurate refusal to listen, the like of which we associate with the MoJ at its worst. The BSB regards the Bar as a source of limitless income, and has now assumed a position of impressive compound arrogance, in which it will demand that members pay - one way or another - for litigation against their own wishes and interests. One wonders, when the number of barristers currently signed up to QASA stands at around 2 (presumably the 2 barrister members of the BSB's QASA board who practice in Criminal Law), what the BSB are hoping to achieve? I can see no purpose other than punishment of the Criminal Bar for having the temerity to do something other than pay up and shut up.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (17)