Nice work if you can get it

[blazey]

Originally Posted by jaysay

I'm not knocking these people BG just saying that £600 per hour seems OTT to me, (by the way the people charging these fees are working against the NHS not for the NHS as blazey intimated, in other wards we are paying) Everyone has the rite to earn a decent wage, bu £600 an hour

Yes Jaysay I know what you were saying. Read my post again.

The NHS team of solicitors are the top law firms in that profession. Anyone going against them would need to put in a hell of a lot of work to compare to their experience, which means you'd have to dedicate all your time to that one case and it would be highly stressful. Therefore you'd have to be crazy to not charge top notch for it.

And as the court reviews all fee's during a court hearing anyway, it's not like they can overcharge. A full break down of the fee's is looked at to ensure that there isn't any overcharging going on anyway and the judge does take it quite seriously. In my short amount of experience i've seen the judge cut the fee's twice and mocked the solicitor whilst she was sat in the room for her evaluations, so they aren't afraid to make a stand against it.

The barristers themselves don't often overcharge unlike solicitors but in that same instance the barrister was charging three times the amount the barrister I was shadowing so the judge also cut that slightly, but not too much because it does seem to take into account experience. The barrister I was working for charged around £200 an hour in that instance and he had around 2yrs practising experience. If we bear in mind that any barrister taking on a case against the NHS would need a lot of experience, then my opinion would be that £600 an hour isn't so bad afterall?

I personally think it is justified, though if we were talking about the £12,000 fee's it costs for the year doing the BVC or LPC then maybe I'd be saying a different thing. Now THAT is something I would complain about!!!

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by blazey

Yes Jaysay I know what you were saying. Read my post again.

The NHS team of solicitors are the top law firms in that profession. Anyone going against them would need to put in a hell of a lot of work to compare to their experience, which means you'd have to dedicate all your time to that one case and it would be highly stressful. Therefore you'd have to be crazy to not charge top notch for it.

And as the court reviews all fee's during a court hearing anyway, it's not like they can overcharge. A full break down of the fee's is looked at to ensure that there isn't any overcharging going on anyway and the judge does take it quite seriously. In my short amount of experience i've seen the judge cut the fee's twice and mocked the solicitor whilst she was sat in the room for her evaluations, so they aren't afraid to make a stand against it.

The barristers themselves don't often overcharge unlike solicitors but in that same instance the barrister was charging three times the amount the barrister I was shadowing so the judge also cut that slightly, but not too much because it does seem to take into account experience. The barrister I was working for charged around £200 an hour in that instance and he had around 2yrs practising experience. If we bear in mind that any barrister taking on a case against the NHS would need a lot of experience, then my opinion would be that £600 an hour isn't so bad afterall?

I personally think it is justified, though if we were talking about the £12,000 fee's it costs for the year doing the BVC or LPC then maybe I'd be saying a different thing. Now THAT is something I would complain about!!!

Now I know why you chose the law proffesion blazey, and why they have such a bad name

[blazey]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Now I know why you chose the law proffesion blazey, and why they have such a bad name

Why is that then?

I only learned how much solicitors and barristers charged mid way through the year when I began researching law firms.

You speak almost as if it is shameful to have a law suit against the NHS, yet when the poor state of NHS hospitals is often in the media with people contracting all sorts of various deadly bugs you'd think one would be in support of enforcing the law against them.

Is it better to work for the NHS and help cover their back for neglectful practise or better to help the person suing them? Or is it a case of which one costs the government the most money?