Shamima Begum

[Mr Kobayashi]

This is broadly correct, although inevitably a bit more nuanced. Legal aid money is divvied up to the legal representatives when the case resolves: guilty verdict; acquittal; dismissal of case; prosecution offering no evidence (PONE) etc. The bulk of the fee for the advocates sits in the brief, with a much lower daily figure for the trial (the refresher). At the bottom and middle of the profession the biggest billers are the ones who are adept at ‘cracking’ their punters i.e.persuading them to plead guilty at an early stage in proceedings. That means the brief fee is theirs and they can move on to the next case, and so on. Because of the systems of returns, this is frequently the next day and so can prove to be a relatively lucrative MO. Trials are time consuming and relatively poorly paid.

The biggest billing juniors in crime are frequently not the best advocates, but those who can churn clients like this. It’s not a case of getting people to plead guilty when they are not, but rather getting people to see sense because they are fucked. It’s a form of sales, as much as being an effective advocate is about being a good salesman. Tell someone they are fucked with authority means it is more likely they will see sense.

But in some circumstances it isn't a case of seeing sense as there's a compelling defence to the charges but it needs the legwork which some firms would rather not do. E.g. getting mental health evidence (I'm not talking about serious crimes like murder which you have already covered below).

And the worst churners are inevitably the same personality of people who pressure sell to grannies and churn more often than not, and not only when people are "fucked".

At the top of the profession there is an entirely different metric. People who are accused of murder, rape and huge frauds rarely plead guilty. There are various reasons for this, some practical, others societal but that is the reality. And so once you are operating at that level, the ability to crack your punter loses its impact on your earnings, because they are usually not for cracking, no matter how persuasive you are.

 

[Kinkybyname]

I wonder if I would be fazed if I saw her severed head? Probably

 

[Phil1]

I wonder if I would be fazed if I saw her severed head? Probably

Well that escalated quickly…

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But in some circumstances it isn't a case of seeing sense as there's a compelling defence to the charges but it needs the legwork which some firms would rather not do. E.g. getting mental health evidence (I'm not talking about serious crimes like murder which you have already covered below).

And the worst churners are inevitably the same personality of people who pressure sell to grannies and churn more often than not, and not only when people are "fucked".

I wasn’t talking about firms but court advocates (barristers and HCAs). There are far more dodgy solicitors in crime than those operating at the front line.

That said, not sure why a firm wouldn’t get an expert report if warranted as it’s billable hours and covers their arse in many instances. It’s no particular skin off their nose.

There will doubtless be people who will cross the line, as human beings are involved, but it’s an uncomfortable truth that the overwhelming majority of people who are accused of serious crimes have (there or thereabouts) done it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn’t have failsafes and protections for individuals and more widely for us all as a society, or that the presumption of innocence in court should be in any way eroded, and of course there are exceptions, but that is the reality - and a guilty plea, when it is the right thing to do, reduces the sentence, sometimes considerably, and often enables the defendant to better control the narrative around their offending, both of which are plainly in their best interests.

 

[KS55]

Oh so the problem is entirely invented, got it.

Unless you are aware of some pandemic of people being tried without being offered free legal representation that the rest of the country hasn't heard of?

Legal aid is not universal, despite several claims to the contrary here.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I wasn’t talking about firms but court advocates (barristers and HCAs). There are far more dodgy solicitors in crime than those operating at the front line.

That said, not sure why a firm wouldn’t get an expert report if warranted as it’s billable hours and covers their arse in many instances. It’s no particular skin off their nose.

There will doubtless be people who will cross the line, as human beings are involved, but it’s an uncomfortable truth that the overwhelming majority of people who are accused of serious crimes have (there or thereabouts) done it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn’t have failsafes and protections for individuals and more widely for us all as a society, or that the presumption of innocence in court should be in any way eroded, and of course there are exceptions, but that is the reality - and a guilty plea, when it is the right thing to do, reduces the sentence, sometimes considerably, and often enables the defendant to better control the narrative around their offending, both of which are plainly in their best interests.

It's a real life example but It's not something I experienced myself, I was told the churning attempt was made, and this was before brief was appointed and before mental health evidence was collected no reason to disbelieve it.

Charge was eventually thrown out in crown court due to mental health of defendant at time of incident.

Small firm operated by between 1-3 solicitor(s) I think.

 

[hilts]

I wonder if I would be fazed if I saw her severed head? Probably

Dont beat yourself up about it you were probably mind bended or summat by tik tok or u tube. Forgive yourself ooohhhh look ice cream.

 

[Kinkybyname]

Dont beat yourself up about it you were probably mind bended or summat by tik tok or u tube. Forgive yourself ooohhhh look ice cream.

I'll have a bucketful ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Oh so the problem is entirely invented, got it.

Unless you are aware of some pandemic of people being tried without being offered free legal representation that the rest of the country hasn't heard of?

I spent a year working at the Legal Services Commission, now the Legal Aid Agency, from 2009 to 2010. That covered the change of government from Labour to the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. Legal Aid certainly was more widely available but even then, two tests were applied before it was granted. 'Means' looked at the applicant's finance and the 'Merit' test checked it was a case that would justify the use of taxpayers' money. But it still wasn't available willy-nilly.

Ken Clarke was the incoming Secretary of State and he was someone I really respected but he willingly agreed to take a huge axe to the MoJ's budget, particularly Legal Aid. It's only available now for a small subset of cases compared to its previous reach.

 

[KPXBLN]

This is broadly correct, although inevitably a bit more nuanced. Legal aid money is divvied up to the legal representatives when the case resolves: guilty verdict; acquittal; dismissal of case; prosecution offering no evidence (PONE) etc. The bulk of the fee for the advocates sits in the brief, with a much lower daily figure for the trial (the refresher). At the bottom and middle of the profession the biggest billers are the ones who are adept at ‘cracking’ their punters i.e.persuading them to plead guilty at an early stage in proceedings. That means the brief fee is theirs and they can move on to the next case, and so on. Because of the systems of returns, this is frequently the next day and so can prove to be a relatively lucrative MO. Trials are time consuming and relatively poorly paid.

The biggest billing juniors in crime are frequently not the best advocates, but those who can churn clients like this. It’s not a case of getting people to plead guilty when they are not, but rather getting people to see sense because they are fucked. It’s a form of sales, as much as being an effective advocate is about being a good salesman. Tell someone they are fucked with authority means it is more likely they will see sense.

At the top of the profession there is an entirely different metric. People who are accused of murder, rape and huge frauds rarely plead guilty. There are various reasons for this, some practical, others societal but that is the reality. And so once you are operating at that level, the ability to crack your punter loses its impact on your earnings, because they are usually not for cracking, no matter how persuasive you are.

What area(s) of law do you practice in, out of interest?