*/
The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) list of the Bar’s top earners in publicly funded work contained several errors and was based on “unreliable” data, the Bar Council has said.
Publication of the MoJ list, an annual event that prompts news stories on which barrister makes the most money from legal aid work, identified the top ten legal aid earners for 2008-09. However the Bar Council spotted several errors and sent out a briefing note, “Barristers’ Earnings—The Reality for Publicly Funded Practitioners” to clarify the issue.
While the MoJ figures listed are said to be earnings for 2008-09, one of the barristers received at least two-thirds of the figure given for work done between 1994 and 2006.
The figure for another barrister included a substantial duplicate payment made to him in error (which has now been paid back).
The Bar Council also pointed out that some payments include money that a barrister had to pass on to other advocates who worked on the case.
In fact, according to the Bar Council’s briefing note, a barrister of ten years’ Call working criminal legal aid “will receive fees of roughly £50-£60 per hour, out of which she will have to pay VAT and office and staff costs, leaving her with about £30-£40 per hour, without making provision for sick pay, annual leave or pension constributions”.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “As agreed with the Bar Council, a number of caveats are published alongside the lists explaining what the figures do and do not represent.
“In particular, we make it clear that the amounts paid do not represent annual earnings and should not be regarded as such. On this occasion no one raised any concern about duplicate payments.
“Other concerns that were raised were resolved before publication. If any of the barristers concerned has subsequently discovered any inconsistency we would be very happy to investigate.”
While the MoJ figures listed are said to be earnings for 2008-09, one of the barristers received at least two-thirds of the figure given for work done between 1994 and 2006.
The figure for another barrister included a substantial duplicate payment made to him in error (which has now been paid back).
The Bar Council also pointed out that some payments include money that a barrister had to pass on to other advocates who worked on the case.
In fact, according to the Bar Council’s briefing note, a barrister of ten years’ Call working criminal legal aid “will receive fees of roughly £50-£60 per hour, out of which she will have to pay VAT and office and staff costs, leaving her with about £30-£40 per hour, without making provision for sick pay, annual leave or pension constributions”.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “As agreed with the Bar Council, a number of caveats are published alongside the lists explaining what the figures do and do not represent.
“In particular, we make it clear that the amounts paid do not represent annual earnings and should not be regarded as such. On this occasion no one raised any concern about duplicate payments.
“Other concerns that were raised were resolved before publication. If any of the barristers concerned has subsequently discovered any inconsistency we would be very happy to investigate.”
The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) list of the Bar’s top earners in publicly funded work contained several errors and was based on “unreliable” data, the Bar Council has said.
Publication of the MoJ list, an annual event that prompts news stories on which barrister makes the most money from legal aid work, identified the top ten legal aid earners for 2008-09. However the Bar Council spotted several errors and sent out a briefing note, “Barristers’ Earnings—The Reality for Publicly Funded Practitioners” to clarify the issue.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps