Legal Costs, Court Fees, Court Rules

The (in)Justice of Legal Gang-Banging

in which

Constitution/HR Rights TOTALLY defeated

(these issues apply to ALL Jurisdictions)

 

(3 Media articles, attached below, from Irish Independent: 2 x journalist Shane Phelan, 1 x Barrister Deirdre Conroy)

 

Conroy's arguments belie those by journalist Phelan & belie the reality of practical experiences when utilising the (in)Justice system.

 

Conroy argues (to effect) that Barristers are leaving, or Legals are deterred from joining, the Bar because of the financial difficulties they face –> years of penury as a junior before being able to make a nominal living income.

BUT, evidence is clear, and supported by Phelan's articles, that litigations results in extortionate fees being incurred – the question is: how is the discrepancy between Phelan & Conroy explained? Does one simply dismiss Conroy's arguments?

 

Surely Conroy would not make blatantly false statements in the media (perhaps in Court, as do attorneys/solicitors & advocates/barristers, including fabrication of 'evidence', and more so when in secretive 'in camera' sessions) – so, in accepting Conroy's arguments, it is then reasonably clear that attorneys/solicitors are fraudulently claiming for work done by juniors (through bills submitted to the Taxing Master) but not paying correctly, or at all, the advocates/barristers for those billed services.

 

Friday October 13, 2017; in Dublin's Four Courts, Court 4, HC President J Peter Kelly presiding & hearing a liquidation matter. A Counsel (moving for liquidation) stated that evidence by auditors Ernst & Young (E&Y) show that entity is not sustainable. The mention of E&Y pricks-up the writer's ears. At a suitable gap the writer interjects and explains that there is evidence material to the matter being heard. Harassment by Kelly, told to sit down. A few minutes later Kelly inquires to the writer's statement - begins to explain that E&Y (along with ALL International Auditors) are instrumental in global pension/investment frauds, the evidence of which has been adjudicated by a Central Bank Governor & 2 others. Kelly abruptly cuts-short, states 'no standing', says to sit down. Sits down but states 'Abuse of Power'. Kelly says 'Leave the Court'; gets up to leave and states 'It's still an abuse of Power); Kelly 'Another comment will incur a penalty' → ?????

 

Penalty? - For what? - Telling the truth!

 

Clearly then Kelly is entrenched in collusion with corporate criminals; also the defending Counsel made no attempt to hear evidence that would benefit his client.

 

This is just one example of Judicial corruption.

 

A Media reporter was present but nothing has been reported – this must be contrasted to murdered Maltese reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia who stood up to corruption wherever, including Government – and Galizia must be positively contrasted to Ireland's murdered journalist Veronica Guerin (1996) whose reporting was limited to the underworld. Guerin was well connected to government, and initially personal assistant to, later friends with, Taoiseach/PM Charles Haughey, and some time as an agent for his son politician Sean Haughey - so clearly Guerin's objectivity was compromised. Effectively, Guerin's reporting against underworld was perhaps more part of a turf-war between:- people 'forced' into crime by a corrupt government, and the government itself.

 

Ireland Government, President & Judges are 'protected' by a generally dishonest media - which is not surprising since corporate criminals have bought-off key players in Government/Parliament. And that is one of the key points behind Malta's break-down → 'international' money (i.e. defrauded, counterfeit money) super-saturating global Money Base & Supply is distorting socio-economies, TOTALLY.

This dynamic was very much behind Haughey's 'successes' – allowing fraudulent/counterfeit money to flood Ireland – and within which Charles Haughey set up secretive personal offshore accounts for himself as did some of his business friends. (The writer approached Sean Haughey c2007 re pension/investment frauds but S Haughey simply laughed – because he knew his family were involved with similar scams, difficulties from which are now (c2017) emerging – ditto: UK Euroland, USA, etc. - and the cover-up of which is why J Kelly silenced the writer in Court)

 

Government are supposed to have oversight of Judges/Judiciary (C34.4.1) and Judges oversight of Government (C34.3.2; BUT, take notice that C34.3.3 attempts to violate C34.3.2; but UDHR 30 negates C34.3.2)

Both Government & Judges FAIL to apply these protective measures because both have been compromised/corrupted by corpOrgCrime.

 

[BUT, the reason for being in Court 4 to be on the receiving end of abuse by Kelly stemmed from an expedited appeal in the Appeal Court (AC) the week before (Thursday Oct 5)

In which the AC Judges wrongly applied Courts of Justice Act 1936 (S37 & 39) (i.e. an appeal from Circuit Court heard in High Court is final) a 1936 Act which pre-existed & contradicts the Constitution (1937) - which Constitution Art 34.2 allows for a court of appeal AND a court of final appeal; i.e. 2 appeals (ignoring the ECHR which allows for appeal to European Courts) – so Judges are wrongly DEFEATING the Constitution with primary laws that pre-existed & without testing for unconstitutionality AND for some 80+ years!!!!! Nevertheless the AC referred the matter back to High Court and to J Kelly that afternoon and whereby Kelly set down appeal for Friday Oct 13, and where&when Kelly dished out the above abuse]

 

After Kelly had finished with the matter (Oct 13) the writer returned to Court 4 (J Eager presiding) to argue his appeal action.

Eager was also very much siding with the legal Counsel and against the writer (a self-litigant) – e.g. counsel reads verbatim extracts from affidavits, Judge accepts; writer does likewise, Judge obstructs.

For 1&1/2 hours Counsel had free-reign in presenting the MERITS of the matter.

Thereafter the writer was interrupted repeatedly by Eager whilst trying to present solely the Constitutional/HR Rights violations behind the matter and had barely completed that when Eager called a halt and refused to hear argument on the MERITS of the Appeal.

It takes far, far longer to DISPROVE than it does for someone to make FALSE ALLEGATIONS.

 

However, amongst numerous Constitutional/HR violations raised by the writer was the issue of fabricated evidence & malpractice by solicitors.

(Solicitors Act 1954 S14(3) empowers the Chief Justice or any High Court Judge to exercise any jurisdiction over solicitors; i.e. including but not limited to the Powers of the Solicitors Disciplinary Committee) – these solicitors must be struck-off the register.

 

One key argument raised by opposing Counsel: The laws are such that with principles that have been decided in a Superior Court that Judges in lower courts therefore have their hands tied.

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it purport that Judges' hands are tied – in fact completely the opposite – Judges, by Oath are appointed as INDIVIDUALS - Judges are COMPELLED to consider new arguments against previous Judgements/Precedences. If there is concern regarding error by a superior Court then the lower Court Judge MUST refer it back to the Superior Court for reconsideration on the new points raised.

 

BUT, Judges do wrongly consider their hands tied – which is why far greater & numerous holocausts (Starvation Genocides) are occurring – because courts are closed-shop thus allowing corpOrgCrime free reign.

 

The (in)Justice system also extorts significant sums, through Court Fees, from people seeking Justice; which Court Fees are vastly increased through the use of unnecessary & purposefully complex Court Rules/Procedures/Practices that present as a minefield, and designed to inflame & prolong litigation.

 

The purpose (wrongfully so) of Court Rules (etc.) is to 'kick' the file of any Court matter around rather than addressing the merits therein.

 

The dynamics (& consequences) of Judicial dishonesty/collusion/corruption can be set out as follows:

 

Gross Supreme Law violations (Constitutional/UDHR/ECHR)

& Primary Laws violations (Parliamentary Acts)

• by Judges using 'secondary laws' (Court Rules/Procedures/Practices) designed to purposefully DEFEAT Supreme & Primary Laws and to obstruct Justice and inflame & prolong litigations
• thus rendering Supreme & Primary Laws worthless
• Closing Doors-of-Justice, enabling corporates to engage in Organised Crime, aggregating globally to Economy Terrorism, driving tyrannies, oppressions, through to Starvation Genocides
• maintaining Ireland as a Nazi State (ditto ALL developed Nations)
• the consequences of which are causing INVERSION OF REASONING IN OTHERS producing understandable (& justifiable) radical reactions - as has become common incidences.

Journalist Phelan states the HC President J Kelly is to REVIEW the Costs issue but that it will take 3 years –> this will achieve NOTHING because it is NOT the root of the problem(s).

 

The problems are stemming from the fact that the Intellectual doors of Justice are closed, bolted, chained, barred, padlocked.

 

Dublin's 'Four Courts' (District, Circuit, High, Supreme Courts) has long been a misnomer:- since establishment of a Small Claims Court → Five Courts; and in 2014 an Appeal Court → now Six Courts.

Yet Justice has become exponentially more elusive!!!!

 

 

ALL that is required is a simple opening of the doors – to allow self-litigants easy access, respectful treatment & fair determinations – along with simplification of the hierarchy of Courts & its Rules.

 

A Preliminary Court, a High Court, Appeal Court & Supreme (Constitutional/HR) Court – with clear separation of Constitutional/HR matters from matters of Merit. Wherein ALL matters are processed through a Prelim Court; Merits & points of law summarised; points in Contention heard by High Court & Judgement given.

 

Automatic Right-of-Appeal therefrom, with Execution of Order automatically stayed pending Appeal.

 

Legals (Solicitors & Barristers) act as Prelim Judges who hold authority on each specific case through to completion. Which would ACCELERATE the process of any matter through a Justice system – would level the awarding of Legal work – would level the generation of income – would level the determinations in litigation – would stimulate Justice System as being an environment for a reputable profession.

 

Costs Orders outlawed (as are Crimes Against Humanity) as already is the case in Small Claims Courts.

 

ALL this could easily be implemented within 2 months – BUT with Judges actively engaged with corporate criminals such simple reforms will be obstructed – and in so doing tyrannies, oppressions & Starvation Genocides/Holocausts, globally, will continue & more effectively than the Nazis dared ever dream of – Judges are far, far, far more effective than Himmler in achieving Holocausts.

 

 

Reiterate: this applies to ALL developed Nations.

 

 

 

Sincerely

 

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

 

 

 

Media reports – Irish Independent

 

Legal costs scandal: how rip-off fees are rampant

Taxing Master reduces payment sought by lawyers by almost 40pc

• Irish Independent
• 14 Oct 2017
• Shane Phelan Legal Affairs Editor Full story, Pages 4-5

Costs are complicated: Law Society chief Ken Murphy

THE watchdog that rules on disputes over High Court legal bills has cut fees sought by lawyers by an average of almost

40pc over the past five years. Data obtained by the Irish

Independent reveals more than

€29.2m in fees claimed were deducted by the Office of the Taxing Master between 2012 and 2016.

The figures will fuel fears about excessive charging for legal services and came as the Court of Appeal yesterday dealt with a case involving a solicitor found to have overcharged a client by €500,000.

The court rejected a bid by Wicklow solicitor Joseph Buckley to have the decision by Taxing Master Declan O’Neill judicially reviewed.

Mr O’Neill found one bill submitted by the solicitor in connection with the sale of a family landholding was five times the norm.

The Office of the Taxing Master dealt with 796 cases last year and in the preceding four years it generally dealt with between 1,200 or 1,300 each year.

Deductions imposed over the five years averaged out at 39.5pc. The Law Society said a large portion of the bill of costs in such cases would include costs other than solicitors’ fees.

THE body that decides on disputes over the size of High Court legal bills has cut fees sought by lawyers by an average of almost 40pc over the past five years.

Data obtained by the Irish Independent reveals more than

€29.2m in fees claimed were deducted by the Office of the Taxing Master between 2012 and 2016.

The figures will fuel fears about excessive charging for legal services and came as the Court of Appeal yesterday dealt with a case involving a solicitor found to have overcharged a client by €500,000.

The court rejected a bid by Wicklow solicitor Joseph Buckley to have the decision by Taxing Master Declan O’Neill judicially reviewed.

Mr O’Neill found one bill submitted by the solicitor in connection with the sale of a family landholding was five times the norm.

The Office of the Taxing Master dealt with 796 cases last year and in the preceding four years it generally dealt with between

1,200 or 1,300 each year. Deductions imposed over the five years averaged out at 39.5pc.

Usually cases involve the successful party in a court action seeking to recover their legal costs from the losing side, but the quasi-judicial office also deals with solicitors seeking fees from their own clients.

The data shows that in 2012, the amounts claimed in cases before the Taxing Master was

€7.3m. Rulings knocked €2.6m off those bills, a reduction of

35.6pc.

The sums claimed jumped by more than double to €16m in each of 2013 and 2014, with ultimately €6.3m (39.1pc) and

€6.1m (38.3pc) respectively deducted. In 2015 the sums claimed had jumped to €24.4m. More than €10.1m of this, or

41.5pc, was disallowed by the Taxing Master. Last year, €10.1m was claimed, of which just over

€4m, or 39.8pc, was deducted. According to the Taxing Master’s Office, parties claiming costs must demonstrate such costs were proper and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Despite making swingeing cuts to legal bills, the Taxing Master does not have the power to otherwise sanction law firms that submit excessive claims.

Instead, complaints must be made to the Law Society. Its figures reveal relatively low numbers of complaints for excessive charging, with just

78 complaints in the 2014/15 period. These included complaints about overcharging in litigation, matrimonial cases, probate and conveyancing.

However, under changes being introduced under the Legal Services Regulatory Act, a new legal adjudicators office replacing the Taxing Master will have powers to appoint investigation committees which can propose sanctions for excessive billing.

The Law Society told the Irish Independent that a large portion of the bill of costs in such cases would include costs other than solicitors’ fees. These could include barristers’ fees, doctors’ fees, engineers’ fees and fees for expert witnesses.

“It may well be these are the fees reduced by the Taxing Master, rather than the solicitor’s own fees,” said the society’s director general Ken Murphy.

He also insisted reductions by the Taxing Master did not necessarily mean there had been overcharging.

“The Taxing Master is not reducing the total bill of costs but rather deciding what portion of those costs the losing part to the action is liable for,” he said.

“When a solicitor submits a bill to taxation, that bill usually includes all costs involved in the action and the Taxing Master is obliged to ascertain which of these costs are recoverable from the losing party. In many cases, a part of the costs not recoverable from the losing party may in fact be categorised as solicitor/client costs and therefore recoverable from the client.”

Mr Murphy said the Law Society was of the view “a solicitor should always seek to recover as much of their reasonable costs as possible from a losing party in an action, so as to ensure the client’s liability to their own solicitor is as low as possible”.

Bar of Ireland chief executive Ciara Murphy said the vast majority of costs relate to solicitors professional fees. She said the statistics were an indication the taxation of costs system was working.

 

 

Caveat emptor: The soaring cost of legal services

Irish legal costs are now so high that some types of litigation are simply beyond the reach of the average person. In the first part of a week-long investigation, our legal affairs editor asks what can be done to make legal services affordable to all

 

The prospect of having to pay astronomical legal fees has long been an obstacle for regular people seeking justice in Ireland's superior courts.

Win, and the other side usually has to pay your lawyers' fees. Lose, and you might have to sell your home or worse.

It was refreshing then to hear the new Chief Justice, Frank Clarke, tackle the issue in his first major speech since assuming office.

 

"It has increasingly become the case that many types of litigation are moving beyond the resources of all but a few," he told a gathering to mark the start of the new legal year, which began this month.

Lawyers are notoriously defensive about the fees they charge, as is the judiciary about its pay.

So, Mr Justice Clarke's comments were a rare acknowledgement that in our system of justice, the dice appear to be loaded in favour of the wealthy.

A general lack of information about civil legal fees has inhibited debate on the issue.

The legal industry in Ireland is big business, generating €2.3bn annually in revenue and supporting 18,000 jobs, but information on private fees is closely guarded.

During the financial crisis, a series of cuts were made to legal fees. These largely related to work in the criminal courts and civil work involving State bodies. In contrast, fees charges by lawyers for private work in the civil courts have been on the rise and have largely escaped scrutiny as they are more difficult to quantify.

Minimal disclosure

 

While public bodies have to disclose what they pay lawyers, private entities and individuals do not. Law firms and barristers are under no obligation to publicly reveal their earnings and there is little in the way of voluntary disclosure.

It is no wonder then that analysts at The Lawyer, a UK-based specialist legal publication, describe Ireland as the "least transparent jurisdiction in Europe" from a data collection perspective.

While it is encouraging the Chief Justice put the high cost of accessing justice front and centre, actual solutions may not be so easy to find.

The fledgling Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) is expected to bring forward measures to increase competition and drive down costs but it is still only in the process of being set up.

One solution advocated by many lawyers is to provide significantly more taxpayer funding to the Legal Aid Board. The board administers a civil legal aid scheme under which, in theory, people of limited means can get support from the State to vindicate their rights in court. In reality, this system is straining under the weight of demand, with long waiting times for consultations.

Many who could reasonably be classed as poor do not meet the qualifying criteria and those that do still have to make a contribution towards their legal costs. These rules gave rise to a shocking situation recently where a domestic abuse victim whose husband threatened to kill her had to represent herself in a family law case because she could not afford the necessary €130 contribution.

The slow pace of reform

However, despite considerable lobbying on issue, the Government has shown little appetite to significantly increase civil legal aid funding.

The judiciary, for its part, is focussed on reviewing procedures, many of which are seen as outdated.

Lawyers aren't the only ones being paid when someone goes to court and parties involved in cases had to spend €44m last year in fees just to lodge civil documents, fees the Courts Service can ill-afford to do without. But if there are to be changes, they won't happen any time soon as a review of the area, being led by High Court President Peter Kelly, is set to take three years.

It is also doubtful whether it will have any impact on fees charged by lawyers.

During the bail-out years, the Troika repeatedly criticised the high cost of legal services in Ireland.

In response, barristers in the criminal courts had their fees slashed, and bodies like the State Claims Agency sought better value for money by inviting tenders for legal services.

However, Ireland remains an expensive place to litigate and the price of legal services is going up rather than down, according to the National Competitiveness Council (NCC). Its 2017 Cost of Doing Business report found legal service prices were 8.3pc higher in the third quarter of 2016 compared to the same quarter in 2012.

Both the Law Society and the Bar of Ireland, which respectively represent and regulate solicitors and barristers, place a health warning on the NCC figures, due to the small sample size used to calculate them. However, the World Bank is also of the view that Ireland is a costly place to litigate, finding it to be the sixth most expensive place in the OECD to enforce a contract.

Law Society director general Ken Murphy said the body was pressing for the revision of court rules to minimise the burden on businesses and individuals. He said increased spending on infrastructure, such as online services, was also needed to speed up the administration of justice.

Bar of Ireland chief executive Ciara Murphy said the ability of courts to cope with caseloads was closely related to the number of judges available. A 2014 study found Ireland had the lowest number of judges in Europe per head of population.

But what about the legal fees charged by practitioners themselves?

A question of fees

A senior barrister prosecuting or defending a murder case is paid a "brief fee" of €7,127. This is a fee covering preparation of a case and the first day of a trial.

For every subsequent day the barrister is paid a "refresher fee" of €1,562. Solicitors receive the same brief fee and a refresher fee of €750 per day. Murder trial brief fees for junior barristers are €4,752.

Lower rates apply in the Circuit Court, but they are still generous. Senior counsel get a brief fee of €1,716 and refresher fees of €858 per day. The brief fee for junior counsel and solicitors is €1,144 and refresher fees are €572 and €418-per day respectively.

Ciara Murphy described the fees on offer as "moderate and well below those paid in other areas", saying they were now similar to levels paid in 2002, while the work involved is now much more complex and demanding.

While the rates paid by the State have been slashed in recent years, an analysis by Review of fees paid by 220 public bodies last year shows many practitioners still do very well. For example, one barrister, Emily Egan SC, earned over €1m working for State bodies last year. Most of her income came from the State Claims Agency. Four criminal barristers earned over €500,000 from prosecution and defence work. Anecdotally, the figures paid for criminal work pale in comparison with those earned by leading practitioners in the civil courts, where fees being charged are said to have increased significantly in recent years.

According to one barrister frequently engaged in litigation in the High Court, leading practitioners now charge a multiple of what they did a decade ago. A brief fee would have been up to €5,000 in 2006, but a senior counsel can now command up to €20,000 for this, while a junior counsel can charge between half and two-thirds of the senior's fee.

A refresher fee, which would have been up to €1,000 for a senior counsel a decade ago, could now be up to €5,000.

The rates are even higher in the Commercial Court. "In big money cases, a senior counsel could charge a brief fee of €45,000 and a junior up to two-thirds of that," the barrister said.

The Medical Protection Society (MPS), which provides indemnity cover for most Irish hospital consultants, told Review it had encountered cases where barristers' brief fees in Ireland were twice those in the UK.

It cited one short trial where a brief fee of €30,000 was charged, double the amount a queen's counsel would seek in England.

The MPS also said it had been involved in cases where the award made was dwarfed by the legal fees charged.

"For example, in a recent case relating to a misdiagnosis of malignant sarcoma where damages settled at €100,000, legal costs of €268,885 were sought," said MPS director of claims policy Emma Hallinan. "In another case relating to a delayed diagnosis of osteoarthritis where damages settled at €17,500, legal costs of €46,159 were sought. This is simply not right."

Data obtained by Review show that where disagreements on High Court costs occur, the quasi-judicial body which decides on such disputes regularly cuts bills. The Office of the Taxing Master has deducted 39.5pc of the value of bills it has adjudicated on since 2012.

Lack of transparency

However, the way in which it has operated has only added to the lack of transparency around costs in the courts system.

Although its hearings are open to anyone to attend, cases are rarely covered by the media and only a handful of determinations are published annually.

It also does not have a public register of determinations, creating a significant information deficit.

This will change when the office is to be replaced early next year under changes being introduced by the LSRA.

A new Office of Legal Costs Adjudicators will publish all of its decisions, and it is hoped this greater level of transparency will place downward pressure on legal costs.

It is just one measure, however, and much more needs to be done if we are to have a justice system open to all.

 

 

 

 

Legal costs: a devil's defence

All this talk of giant fees is fine but it takes years for barristers to make even a basic income

Deirdre Conroy (Barrister)

Irish Independent

October 15 2017 2:30 AM

 

 

The very thought of ending up in court always sent shivers down my spine. As a young woman, my most "accidental" contraventions of law resulted in parking and speeding fines, "inadvertently" driving in a bus lane or unconsciously overlooking my motor tax renewal date, all led to a tearful parting of hard-earned cash.

The fear of a courtroom, the mystery of legal fees, taking days off work to attend a hearing - all of the above, aside from morality, are enough to make me behave. Nowadays, my fear of the courtroom has somewhat abated, as I have to go in there as a devil. That's where barristers start; spending two years shadowing a master and doing research, appearing in court for mention or a motion in front of the County Registrar or Master of the High Court. No fees guaranteed.

Some devils establish themselves with masters in the Criminal Courts of Justice and gather fees if they are on their feet enough, €25 for an appearance, €50 for a guilty plea and €67.50 for a hearing. When payment is made is another question, it usually takes months. The same applies for appearance on the Circuit, without any reimbursement of mileage. It's not exactly exorbitant remuneration, considering the years of study, part-time jobs, the university fees, the law library fees, the formal clothes, the transport.

 

It is not surprising that so many barristers have had to leave the Bar to find work elsewhere. We are told it is at least five years before a basic income becomes viable. Part-time work is not unusual and pro-bono work is common for barristers. And yet, the response I got from a few people when I told them I was doing law, was generally "are you mad, they are all robbers!" Even a well-known newspaper columnist declared at a public lecture I attended, that all "lawyers should be taken out and shot". Clearly, some litigants have perhaps taken a gamble, didn't win, and are very sore losers.

Unlike legal fees, when it comes to costs, there are some areas I don't understand, where I have no choice but to pay up. I phoned my car insurer last week asking about the 25pc rise in my premium, I was informed of a new Government levy. The increase in premium is not due to legal costs on claims, as is often reported. The levy is entirely attributable to the expensive lifestyle of the Quinn family. So, without your permission, without your request, you are paying Sean Quinn's legal fees and loss of investment in a bank he gambled on.

The necessity of legal fees is apparent to the general public, in house purchase, family law or probate. Fees in those areas can be clearly set out and agreed in advance. When it comes to criminal issues, barristers contribute to the funds for Free Legal Aid for those that find themselves in a vulnerable position, charged with breaking the law, without sufficient means to defend themselves. Isn't it alarming then when a well-paid TD seeks and is awarded Free Legal Aid?

In most cases, you will have a solicitor's fee at a rate for which you can budget. Unless, of course, the marriage break-up, or the will is contested and an angry party decides they want their day in court. Even at that, couples are encouraged to have mediation rather than take their case to court.

There is consistent public confusion between solicitors and barristers and the fee system. In straightforward cases, consultation with a solicitor could be sufficient for advice and they can seek a written legal opinion to assist your decision on whether to take a case to court or not. Such a written opinion, citing legislation and case law, can start at €150.

The best in any profession can succeed financially from their hard work, building their expertise and making smart investments through private equity - heart surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and accountants are not criticised for their fees. They can have big houses, holiday homes, etc., and their income is not questioned.

Barristers act for clients who need their advocacy; the work, time and research, the complexity and novelty of cases is undermined by what appears to be a few hours on their feet in court. Emergency injunctions require weekend all-nighters, judicial reviews are heavy-loaded with research and paperwork, the mountain of photocopying is phenomenal. I can attest to that. There could be a minimum of 10 people on a case including solicitors, their trainees, barristers and pupils - and only the pupil/devil is unpaid.

 

It was in the age of tribunals that pupils were at a great advantage if they were commissioned. The fees in tribunals are what have given the impression of that all-round massive income. At least, the Irish art market did well out of the tribunal era.

Unlike other professions where you can develop a relationship with your consultant, members of the Bar are seen as aloof. It is part of the ethos to be independent. One could be acting for the State one week and against the State the following week, everything is argued on law. We are sole traders; most barristers carry out their own work, with the assistance of a first or second-year devil. With the difficulty in making a living at the Bar, the devil population has dramatically decreased in recent years.

Ultimately, in my experience, Irish people hate paying fees. They are inclined to think they can sort out issues themselves, and resent having to consult an expert for advice, particularly legal advice, which can go either way. Legal advisers can provide essential advice in dispute resolution, when it comes to settlement negotiations, avoiding public exposure in court. The alternatives of mediation and arbitration are increasingly popular, and the fine-tuned ability and experience of legal practitioners bring, in my short experience, relief to both sides.

So when you leave a bag of rubbish outside your house, untagged, or beside a bottle bank, and end up in the District Court being fined and paying legal costs - think about the cost to the State, the waste of court time, and the delay in more important hearings. Behave!