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

  • Interesting point by 5.07pm on the 9th October. When the new Public Procurement Directive comes into force mid next year this kind of work will have to be tendered or risk falling foul of the Remedies Directive with potentially horrendous financial consequences for the letting public body.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wow. What an incredible amount of money for. 2 days work. It could almost pay for a number of lawyers for a whole year or the annual salary of the Chief Executive of the Law Society ....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How are such huge costs justified? £400K+ for a two day hearing. Costs ultimately funded by practitioners practice fees. The same practitioners who have raised serious concerns re QASA and from which the claimants come from. Dinah Rose QC and Tom De Le Mere should be applauded by acting pro bono in accordance with the conventions and best traditions of the bar. Their selfless act should be adopted throughout

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is what MMQC had to say about LSB on 17.9.13 The LSB "is an expensive oversight regulator which consistently seeks to impose its own vision of how legal services should be delivered and expects the legal profession to pick up the bill." Exactly. Shame on them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Historically the Bar Council and BSB have relied very heavily on pro bono assistance from barristers, often with little or no support from solicitors. The fact that the BSB can no longer do so bears testament to the way they have squandered the profession's goodwill. Many of those of us who have prosecuted disciplinary cases pro bono in the past pro bono will no longer act for them. Frankly the BSB is making an enemy of all whom they regulate - very foolish and short-sighted.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh my days. In 1998 an unspectacular but wholly competent senior criminal barrister could earn £150k (£75k take home). Cut, cut, cut , cut, cut and proposed cut (have I missed a cut?) he will earn £50,000 (take home £25k). Can anyone think of any profession - 5 years of training etc - where it is acceptable that you would earn one third of what you did circa 10 years ago?

    You spin me right round, baby, right round right round like a record...to all the political parties. Well, fuck you - house is on the market, kids are out their schools, no pension, chambers collapsing?, can not pay tax bill from earning 2 years ago, no child benefit and you know, justice? There is a certain love and sacrifice doing crime - You will never be rich - It's shocking that all those in power who benefitted from the law, who are in power now are such assholes given a sniff.

    I will strike, and so will every I know barrister but who really cares?

    Is there a civil or commercial barrister who gives a flying one?

    Rant over.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In answer to Gerry Mohabir: Yes, there are plenty of barristers in commercial practice who care deeply about what is happening. While one public law / commercial barrister is named in the article as taking the LSB's pieces of silver (and apparently lots of them), there are at the same time two who are named as acting entirely pro bono for the Criminal Bar Association. Many commercial barristers have spent years fighting hard against the crazy regulatory structure foisted on us by New Labour (with the disgraceful acquiescence of some of our colleagues), and now we are doing everything we can think of to help resist the fees cuts being imposed on the criminal Bar now. What can we do now? A question for civil barristers on the Attorney General's Panel is whether we would be prepared to take industrial action or resign from the Panels, in solidarity with our colleagues practising criminal and family law. Ultimately it is massively in the interests of all barristers - including commercial practioners - that we form part of the same esteemed profession that defends individuals' rights and liberties in criminal courts up and down the land.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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)