"Greedy lawyers" to blame for global financial crisis?

ninky_2

Okay okay so I used Daily Mail headline tactics to get you here but here’s the question.
What should be the function of the law, and therefore lawyers, in our society?
Is it to protect the vulnerable, ensure justice or prove the guilt or innocence of criminals?
Or is it to increase the wealth or protect the very large piles of it for a small section of society?
I think while we’re busy blaming “greedy bankers”, we’d do well to consider “greedy lawyers” too.
For example, compensation culture, fuelled by companies like canyoufakewhiplashandgetabigpayoutfrominsurance.co.uk has seen no improvements in actual Health & Saftey but loads of annoying !!!!! covering in the workplace, with employers getting you to sign all sorts of bits of paper to agree you’ve been told how to lift heavy loads, while continuing to increase working hours and workloads on their workforce.
Likewise, the legal aid system is a joke. Access to the Law is only available to the very rich or those that can claim (of fake) destitution. The main beneficiary of legal aid at the moment seem to be asylum seekers / illegal immigrants, fuelling a growth in two bit Law firms pursuing often hopeless immigration cases extremely incompetently because they can get public money from it.
Lawyers are the ones fighting the good fight for bankers and banking institutions and insuring they keep as much of their ill-gotten gains as possible (as well as siphoning off a huge wedge for themselves in the process).
Here is one example of a sacked city lawyer suing for 5 million because of abuse claims when younger at a Jesuit school.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5038067/Former-City-lawyer-claims-record-5-million-over-alleged-sex-abuse-at-Jesuit-school.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163141/Sacked-City-lawyer-launches-5million-claim-old-Jesuit-Catholic-school-abuse-70s.html
Why doesn’t every woman who has been raped or abused have access to the chasing compensation through the courts? I’ll tell you why, because most lawyers are busy chasing a fast buck and pursuing the interests of their wealthy mates. The few that go into law to help the disadvantaged or fight for real justice are quickly disheartened.

Conrad

Lawyers chase fee's, yes they do, but then I find deep down when push comes to shove most of us are greedy, always chasing bargains, which, means others have to work for less pay, or battling over an inheritance.

Then I think of all those Women in high profile state funded jobs such as regulators, social services, educational bodies, Human rights and so on that draw massive salaries without any complaint.

Lawyers are the same as the rest of us

Conrad

Also, what about Jeremy Paxman on £1m per year or Kirsty Walk? Why pick on the same old easy targets, Bankers and Lawyers?

Ben Elton is worth £50m - he's a socialist - what do u think of him?

ninky_2

Conrad wrote: »

Lawyers are the same as the rest of us

apart from the fact that an effectively functioning legal system is crucial to the type of world we live in.

i am being deliberately provocative. but I think that law, like banking, is an area that is being allowed to slide out of control without adequate regulation.

ninky_2

Conrad wrote: »

Ben Elton is worth £50m - he's a socialist - what do u think of him?

hypocrite.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

apart from the fact that an effectively functioning legal system is crucial to the type of world we live in.

i am being deliberately provocative. but I think that law, like banking, is an area that is being allowed to slide out of control without adequate regulation.

I've made no secret DH works ininternational corporate law.

I agree somewhat with Ninky that the industry is experiencing change. But I think the law is more segmented than Ninky's original post gives room for in evaluating why and how and greed. Crimnal lawyers are not always well paid, starting jobs, and many 'middle of the road' criminal lawyers are not on the salaries associated with, say, corporate law. I worked as a solicitor's clerk (in criminal) for a short time, and often was paid more for a position needing no qualification whatsoever, than the baby barrister's I was working with. (at the time £46.50 for a hearing, I got £30 for a half day) Of course...a barrister can do many hearings in day....if they are instructed! Getting instructed can be hard at the beginning. Solicitors in crimnal law start I believe in wages in the teens, not at the £30k starting wage plus of corporate law: incidently a figure considered by some on the how much money thread a decent wage that was fair. Its also interesting, when discussing this on the international scale of corporate law to look at waht lawyers get paid in other countries with different politcal bent. Its a world wide market at the top end, not a national one.

ETA: I think nthis is an interesting question, Ninky and will be interested to see how it plays out. You do posereally good points of debate

e.g. if lawyers are considered essential, should the criminal soliciotrs be getting more? Should rates be akin to civil servant rates? Should they be expected to receive the same kind of retirement scheme etc, even if not state employed? Intersting thoughts Ninky!

tomterm8

In many ways, the role of a lawyer depends on whose interest they represent. A lawyer, unlike a judge or other legal professional, does and should not represent the interests of society as a whole. There purpose is solely to represent the interest of their client to the best of their ability without disobeying the law.

Maybe the real question you are asking is, what should be the purpose of the law? In my own view, the purpose of the law is to be inefficient enough that people have the freedom to make their own mistakes, while efficient enough to make sure that people behave in a way that doesn't harm others too much.

ninky_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

There purpose is solely to represent the interest of their client to the best of their ability without disobeying the law.

it is interesting though how many choose to represent the interests of wealthy clients and in cases where big payouts are at stake.

should a lawyers fee be dependent on the outcome of the case or how much a client can afford to pay? i think these are ways that the effectiveness of law is highly distorted in our society.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

In many ways, the role of a lawyer depends on whose interest they represent. A lawyer, unlike a judge or other legal professional, does and should not represent the interests of society as a whole. There purpose is solely to represent the interest of their client to the best of their ability without disobeying the law.

Maybe the real question you are asking is, what should be the purpose of the law? In my own view, the purpose of the law is to be inefficient enough that people have the freedom to make their own mistakes, while efficient enough to make sure that people behave in a way that doesn't harm others too much.

Is a judge not a lawyer? Or is he/she considered an ex lawyer?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

it is interesting though how many choose to represent the interests of wealthy clients and in cases where big payouts are at stake.

should a lawyers fee be dependent on the outcome of the case or how much a client can afford to pay? i think these are ways that the effectiveness of law is highly distorted in our society.

Solicitors' fees are changing. In corporate law, I mentioned (yesterday?) somewhere DH is noticeing some people are negotiating caps on fees....which means their legal team has to limit hours and, essentially, negotiations are in favour of an uncapped solicitor, because they can devote more time to it.

Law is also changing because of the changes to who can own lawfirms, and of course, no win no fee.

In criminal law, with representation under the old rules of legal aid - and I think now-fees are set by the state. Mike Mansfield openly rerports, and says he disapporves of, his large income, but its state set.

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

Is a judge not a lawyer? Or is he/she considered an ex lawyer?

There are lots of different types of judges, some of whom are not lawyers (i.e. some magistrates, heads of some tribunerals, officers in the Financial Ombudsman Service who exercise a judicial jurisdiction). Some of them ARE lawyers, in which case we can consider them a special case of lawyers (lawyers hired by the state, whose responsibility is to efficiently decide legal questions according to law ).