Too many appeals aloud in law.

[neil42]

Considering the the Dale farm eviction process has be going on for 10 years,with appeal after appeal dragging it on and on,are there too many appeal processes in law.Wouldnt it be better to have just one appeal by an impartial group and then thats it.It just seems to me to be a bit of a license to print money for the lawyers.

[neil42]

Well suprise suprise,the courts are holding off the decision on whether or not to evict the travllers untill Monday.I think they are eecking out every penny they can out of this.Afterall ,they have only had 10 years to sort this out!!!!

[factor-fiction]

Well it's often not that 'simples'. I'm sure many of us have replied on an appeals process at some stage and have been grateful for it. There may be new information to consider or there may be a challenge as to the process followed or of the legal arguments/reasoning. But I would agree that some appeals are simply made to cause inconvenience and delay things. I don't know who is funding the legal case here for the travellers.

[jake-the-peg]

Brain surgery's easy too

Open up the skull whip out the tumour, laser up the arteries

Easy

Then and again, I don't know the first thing about it

[tamborine]

If you lose an appeal there's usually a daily heavy fine that could cost your property, tho in Dale Farm's case, it could/should cost them their land.

[neil42]

interesting answer jake,but surely there must be a limit to some thing,otherwise two parties can go back and forth adinfinitum.

[twix123]

And all the while Basildon Council have been paying them Council Tax and Rent benefit!

[neil42]

Guess what,the judges have given themselves more time to earn a bit more out of this case....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-essex-15057483

Think its about time the law in this country was given a roots up overhaul.Maybe a fixed cost on all cases no matter how long it lasts,then maybe the judges would make a decision one way or the other and the lawyers might not be so enthusiastic to drag it out so long.

[vivandorron]

Barristers and Solicitors make small fortunes(or should that read large) out of dragging cases on and on, for as long as is possible.

Is there anyone from the legal profession and/or a member of AB who challenges my statement.?

Ron.

[Barmaid]

Yes Ron. Me. Certainly members of the Bar have to act in the best interests of their clients. I know of no member of the Bar who would apply (and be granted) an adjournment just to inflate costs. Indeed, one of the main parts of the "overriding objective" under the Civil Procedure Rules is that cases be dealt with cost effectively.

The suggestion that Judges should make a decision either way on a fixed cost basis is ludicrous. I rather suspect that in a case of this nature, the Judge wanted time to consider his judgement and perhaps do some more research which is why he has reserved judgement. Hearing fees, are in any event, fixed. If he gets it right at this stage, it cuts down the potential for appeal. You pay one hearing fee irrespective of how long the case takes.

In certain cases (eg, fastrack cases, again Counsel's fee is fixed at a set rate depending on the amount of the claim. Counsel does NOT get paid if the case runs over into a second day so there is absolutely no reason to draw it out).

The LAST thing a lawyer wants is an adjournment - particularly if they have spent the last 2 days prepping for trial. They know for a fact that in 5 months time when the case is relisted, they will have to spend the best part of a further day and half to get on top of the papers again and prep is never paid twice!

And then there are those lawyers who do a lot of work pro bono - which otherwise their clients would be unable to afford.

[vivandorron]

Barmaid...I read what you say and still stand by my view that fees are far more important to Barristers and Solicitors than the actual outcome of cases on which they have been employed.

Ron.

[boxtops]

I can't agree, ron - the reputation of a barrister rests on whether or not they are successful, not that they earn a lot of fees.

[vivandorron]

Hi boxtops.....Correct. Reputations matter a lot but it doesn't alter the fact that high fees are important to Barristers and Solicitors who will work towards such.

Ron.

[Barmaid]

Wrong Vivandron. "High fees" are not important. What is important is getting a good result for your client. Getting paid sensibly (but not over the mark) is obviously important since that is what pays the mortgage. However, what really matters is the result. If you get a good result and it is reported in the law reports, more work will likely result. Dragging it out and getting no result actually might result in one cheque. Bringing it to a quick and efficient conclusion to the benefit of the client will ordinarily result in more work.

Also barristers cannot sue for their fees. Hence I have some fees outstanding from up to 7 years ago which I doubt I shall ever receive.

[Barmaid]

So Ron, apart from the fact that you completely ignored most of my post about fixed fees, I assume you have direct evidence of fees being more important to lawyers? How much recent direct knowledge do you have?

[albaqwerty]

No, there are not too many appeals. If you were on the other side, then more appeals would be a good thing.

Divorce is/can be a licence for lawyers to print money.

[vivandorron]

OK Barmaid...Barristers cannot sue for their fees but Solicitors can on their behalf; because Barristers fees will be included in the Solicitors account.

I agree that Barristers wish to get the best result for their clients but that does not mean that justice has been done, if by clever argument a guilty person is deemed to be innocent. I take the view that sometimes a Barrister knows that his/her client is guilty but will offer a defence irrespective of the truth.

Ron.

[Barmaid]

A barrister's place is not to judge Ron. If the client says "I didn't do it - this is what happened", those are the barristers's instructions. End of. The jury's (or in the case of a civil trial, Judge's) role is to do the judging. The best the barrister can do is advise on the evidence and his client's prospects of success and put forward the case as instructed.

It appears the goal posts have moved though. Your original post was about lawyers dragging out cases for their own ends, now we are on what a barrister "thinks" about his client.

(And even if a solicitor sues for fees, how much good does this do a barrister who depends on his professional client for continuing work? The best a barrister can do is make a complaint to the Law Society. He has no action in law unless it is a direct access case).

I repeat - what recent evidence or knowledge do you have to support your assertions?