Complaints hike follows surge in unrepresented litigants
An increase in litigants in person has been cited as the reason for a sharp spike in complaints against barristers, alleging discrimination.
The Bar Standards Board yesterday heard there were eight complaints in the first quarter of 2012/13, compared to just nine in the whole of last year. In total, the BSB received 79 new complaints from external sources, with the most common allegations made in complaints classified as discreditable or dishonest conduct and misleading the court.
Solicitors and barristers have long warned that legal aid cuts will mean an increase in litigants in person and burden the court system. BSB board member Simon Lofthouse QC said this increase was now feeding in to complaint numbers.
‘It is an increasing aspect of practising in this country that people appearing in court are not represented,’ he said. ‘As a result there is a lack of understanding of the court’s process and the role of the barrister. This creates misunderstanding and quite often results in complaints – almost invariably uninformed and 95% of which are dismissed.’
BSB chair Baroness Deech said government needs to understand that removing legal aid will only lead to further problems. More than 40% of complaints were concluded or referred to an investigation within one month, with 61.5% resolved within six months.
Comments
Blame the LiP - a handy scapegoat
The rise in complaints against solicitors/barristers was bound to rise in family proceedings as members of the public see what is going on.
Lawyers writing/giving material to judges behind LiPs backs, lawyers sending material to third parties without court permission and lawyers making up case law - these have featured in the law reports for contempt etc. Until lawyers clean up their act twill always be so.
While Lips are funding themselves they will rightly be aggrieved when taxpayers funds are being used for the wrong purpose eg legal aid granted for one proceedings but being used for other purposes. eg AR funding cannot be used for CSA work. be careful when your costs draftsman includes it and you sign it off - oh forgot judges would only regard it as a simple mistake ergo cannot complain to SRA/BSB. so the gravy train goes on, the LSC do nothing and the taxpayer gets looted - be careful as a LiP will now be watching.
It may be the complainants were not advised that they have to have findings of fact by a court first and then complain - see Sarah Harman's case for example. This is the myth peddled by the media/legal profession that one can simply complain and something will get done - not if the judge says it was a mistake etc.
Keep cutting I say until the pips squeak and we revert to courts of law and not courts of legal aid.
Bitter?
Bitter?
more cuts
Bitter? who moi?
with the news today that more people regard the benfits system as too generous looks prescient.
we shall have to wait and see what pans out just as with LJ Wall's prediction of implosion in the family courts - something he has some control of and could make happen?
More LiPs means the more of the public will get to know - as I suppose we now do with Hillsboro?
I wondered what had happened
I wondered what had happened to Mr Djanogly.
Complaints not upheld
95% of complaints not upheld? Mine was one of them. I had a criminal investigation into allegations of abuse which concluded that my daughter was being coerced by the mother to make the allegations. At the next hearing, in full knowledge of the investigation outcome, mother's barrister accused me of criminal conduct in front of the judge. I complained to the Bar Standards Council; rejected. Before he knew the outcome of the complaint we were back in court due to the mother not obeying contact orders, apparently acting on the advice of this turd. He admitted at that hearing, when the judge was less than impressed with his b/s, that he had indeed gone too far last time. So he admits it, but the BSC drops the complaint.
So the mother accused you of
So the mother accused you of something, and the barrister did his job, and told the judge what the mother's position was.
You were right, and the judge agreed with you.
So let's imagine another case, not yours, but one where the father *actually was* guilty of abuse.
Are you saying that the barrister should not be allowed to say that to the judge, just in case it turns out that it is not true? And that if he does say that, he should be punished for it?
So what would happen? Barristers would not mention possible abuse, and children would get abused. Oh that would be great wouldn't it!!
By the way, the police do not "find" that people have not abused children, or that the mother coerced. They investigate, and the CPS decide whether or not they think there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person should go to prison.
Civil courts decide on the balance of probabilities what the best interests of the child would be.
My heart goes out both to the
My heart goes out both to the poster StuG and [probably] to the barrister acting for his ex-wife. The poster's comments tie in with the discussion between domcoop and Dai Pugh, and reflect the situation in our family courts.
For my part, I regard the crazed feminist bias both in these places, and in any 'emanation of the state' - the NHS, the social services, etc. - involved in parenting, as a given, and as something not capable of being denied among reasonable people. If you are a husband/father, every conceivable accusation against you will be taken as Gospel until proved otherwise. Further, the court/state apparatus regards you as unnecessary and totally disposable, even if there are NO specific accusations against you.
First, I saw this in practice, then I had to live it. These days, my daughter is my judge, and her verdict is love beyond comprehension.
As for the barrister in StuG's complaint, I think I can see what happened. He made an error of judgment under fire, and pushed his client's instructions that one step too far. That is certainly worth a judicial ticking-off, but ought not to be a BSB matter. And the tickings-off work: at least, I have never forgotten the one I received about 17 years back for something similar.
barristers
Lips on the increase due to lack of legal aid and connected to increase of complaints against barristers and solicitors? does this mean that legal aided representation is available for the sole purpose of suppressing the compalints against the legal profession by the collusion of the legal profession?. or Is the legal aid representation which is paid ar the rate of peanuts only exist to give an illusion of justice in britain?
If you think the family courts are bad go and see what is going on in the Bankruptcy Courts, where Barristers, solicitors, Official Receivers, their associates the trustees and Registrars and Judges all come from the same Insolvency Practioners Club and exparte- judgments and bankruptcy orders are obtained without question!. The best practise of justice appears to be gagging orders against Lips especially to cover up fraud and claims against indeminity insurance against the legal profession. Justice where can I find it, someone please point the way there for myself and other Lips