Which of These Lawyers Can Justify Their 'Fat-Cat' Fees?; Lawyers, Barristers, Legal Aid

By Cheston, Paul | The Evening Standard (London, England), April 26, 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Which of These Lawyers Can Justify Their 'Fat-Cat' Fees?; Lawyers, Barristers, Legal Aid


Cheston, Paul, The Evening Standard (London, England)


Byline: PAUL CHESTON

THE OUTSPOKEN attack by Mr Justice Butterfield on the legal aid barristers in the Afghan plane hijack trial at the Old Bailey has inflamed the growing controversy over fat-cat lawyers growing rich at the taxpayers' expense.

The judge felt compelled to speak out because the trial ended with a hung jury and there will now be a retrial when the barristers can expect a second bonanza pay-out. But not, he hoped, with such extensive legal representatives at the expense of the taxpayer.

Glaring at the benches, he told counsel: "It is the duty of each legal representative to keep under review the need for more than one advocate to be present in court and to consider whether a legal aid order should be amended to take into account this regulation. It is also the duty of a QC to keep under review whether he could act alone.

"I have no power to order an amendment to a legal aid order [for the new trial] but I draw the regulation to the attention of counsel in this case and to the court generally."

The Old Bailey trial which stretched over four months involved 27 barristers, including a QC and a junior counsel for each of the 12 defendants - all funded by legal aid which amounted to a substantial part of the estimated [pound]12 million cost of the hearing.

Some of the senior silks are estimated to have earned six-figure sums for the hearing - as the judge pointed out, for playing little part in the trial.

Much of the rest of the legal aid costs went to the seven firms of solicitors employed in the case.

Legal sources say that QCs in such a trial would expect to be paid between [pound]30,000 and [pound]50,000 for all pre-trial work depending on their experience and the complexity of the individual defence, plus refreshers of up to [pound]5,000 a week.

In fact the judge absolved Ben Emmerson, who represented the first defendant Ali Safi, of any blame and said he could "fully justify doing the case and the assistance of a junior".

But the judge added: "I have grave doubts whether those observations could properly be applied to many others in this case. That is not a reflection on anybody in the first trial when, among other things, one of the defendants was a loose cannon and complicated an already substantial and serious case."

The judge clearly did not aim his remarks at all the barristers in the case but questioned whether two counsel or a QC could be justified for every defendant.

The judge pointed out that while some barristers, particularly Mr Emmerson, worked hard and "bore the heat and burden of battle" in court, others found they had little to do in court other than take notes.

In his rare but unforgettable speech Mr Justice Butterfield spoke of his "obvious concerns about the cost of legal aid" and pointedly wondered how it was necessary for two counsel to represent each defendant when some had called no witnesses or evidence and confined themselves to a few questions and a closing speech.

The retrial was ordered after the jury was deadlocked and failed to reach verdicts on the full charges facing 11 of the 12 defendants after 40 hours of deliberations.

Barristers are already at war with the Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine over his plans to cut legal aid rates for criminal trials. He is determined to reduce the burden to the taxpayer of the one per cent of cases, mostly murder, fraud and drug cases, which eat up 40 per cent of the legal aid budget for crown court cases.

In retaliation barristers have drawn up plans to scrap their professional guideline to take legal aid work whatever the price and their long standing "cab rank "rule to take cases in rotation when they come along rather than pick and choose.

Officials in the Lord Chancellor 's Office have been embarrassed by the newspaper headlines exposing the massive cost of the Afghan trial which would be inflated even further by the retrial.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Which of These Lawyers Can Justify Their 'Fat-Cat' Fees?; Lawyers, Barristers, Legal Aid
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?