Report comment

The reason that it is not entirely right to compare the legal profession with other professions is because in other professions as long as you pass all your exams or assessments then you get to call yourself, for example, an accountant, dentist, doctor, but not only that, you get to practice that profession and get paid handsomely for doing so.

In the legal profession, only one quarter get to practice; 75%, clearly, do not. The legal profession is effectively one of the last closed shops left, you have to have your union card equivalent to practice.

My son has just qualified as a doctor, all those students who passed can practice, not just the 25% of the lucky, brightest (supposedly), and sometimes well connected few who were able to beef up their CV because they could afford to stay in London, complete mini-pupillages and shadow judges etc.

I agree that perhaps bouncers should not be allowed in the court room without something more. That something should be that they have been called to the bar. Your potential client can then make the choice between the best of the best (supposedly) asking the best of prices, or they can have something, someone, by way of analogy, a national health dentist, at 1/3rd of the rate. Better a cheaper dentist than no help at all for your nagging toothache.

Is justice served by expensive barristers? The reality of unaffordable barristers is, for example, charging £2,400.00 for an opinion, strewn with spelling and legal errors. Yes, you can always focus on some moron who does not know how to behave in court, but, are all professionals really as good as they might want us to believe?