*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
