*/
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 reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
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
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
