[BBC News] Applicants wanted for Manx judge

[Pragmatopian]

the problem with the amount of advocates is the legal aid system. the majority of the people who are trying to fight the government and social services are the same people who cant afford to pay for advocates, so therefore they are the people claiming legal aid. now you see the thing is, all the advocates on the island stick together, usually the advocate working for the client on legal aid has probably, at some time or another worked with, and socialises with, the advocate working for the defense (ie. govt / social). so you often get victims who find an advocate to represent them against the govt/social, get so far with the case, come up against difficulty, dont get anywhere further with the case, then throw the case in after two years. this advocate has been paid the legal aid money for his work in the 2 years, yet now the victim has to find another advocate to represent him. the new advocate has to treat it as a new case, so the legal aid money has been lost that was paid to the first advocate. nothing happened. it didn't go anywhere. the money was paid to him for nothing. so then the second advocate tries to advance the case, he tries for 18 months - 2 years, he comes up against too many obstacles and also decides to throw the case in. the victim is now back to square one, 4 years on and no further on. it does make you think though, with the whole of athol street advocates being so close, whether the advocates in this example are ever really working in the clients best interests? what with the way the legal aid money is being thrown at the advocates lately. this, coupled with the way the DLA is set up, puts major strains on the victims, who, in many cases, are unable to work due to whatever accident/incident that started the legal fight in the first place, which has now gone on for years. this is why there are so many advocates on the island, because a lot of them are paid for fuck all.

 

Firstly, can you please punctuate your post properly and split it into paragraphs? It is extremely difficult to read. Secondly, can you come up with one example where this has happened? If so, then please do not recount it here, but report it to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal: it would represent the grossest breach of the rules of conduct by which all advocates are bound.

 

To address a couple of points particularly:

• Inevitably, advocates may have friends who are other advocates. However, when acting for their client they are obliged to put personal relationships aside and act purely and fearlessly in their client's interests. There is a tradition at the English bar (not sure about the Manx one) that barristers do not shake hands when meeting one another, and it has its roots in the need for professional detachment.
   
  
• An advocate cannot generally refuse or give up a case, however hopeless he or she believes that case is. At the English bar there is a 'taxi rank' rule and I assume the same is true of the Manx bar: if a client comes along, is prepared to pay your usual fees, and you are able to represent them, then you will represent them.
  

[John Wright]

The problem with Legal aid, as with any other government funded service, NHS or Education is that Government os always fighting to keep down expenditure and the public always want to have more spent.

 

There have not been any reviews of rates for a long time, either pay to advocates, from £77 per hour min to £104 maximum to cover purchase of practice, repayment of Student loan, repayment of debt incurred whilst training, office rent, books, computers, payment of staff, payment of Pi insurance etc. An employed junior advocate will probably manage 1100 billable hours, research time is not recoverable or paid for nor is administration. That is an income of £85,000. They will be paid £35,000, after a 3 year degree, a one year professional training course and a two or three year apprenticeship. Employers NI adds another £4,000 and a secretary ads £13,000 gross. Their share of PI will be about £4,000 and then there are shared or common services, share of receptionist and telephone, heat, light and power copier system and computer system, say another £10,000. There is then a basic room say 12x12 at 15 per sq foot £2,000 and a share of all the common aras at the same rate, another 1,000.

 

Without accidents and wirthout books and computer research resources the total is £69,000. Add another £6,000 for the office back up. You are now at £75,000, a slim £10,0000 profit for the partners, if all goes well. Have a month off sick or have a part bill disallowed and its gone.

 

Qualifying incomes for claimants have not been reveiewed either, new areas have come in, Human Rights fore instance.

 

In my experience, inspite of these problems there is always someone willing to take a csae on if it has merits, and to advise on the merits. No advocate is going to refuse a csae because it is against another advocate or government. Soem firms are on a panel to represent government or the Advocates insurers, thye may not, as policy, take on such cases, but there is good reason for that.

 

No I am not trying tio plead poverty.

 

The Government has an independent report into legal aid it is to shortly issue, It has had it for 3 yeras. It may take a decade to implement. It is important, not for advocates but for any one interested in a fair legal system under freedom to Flourish, and acccess to justice has to be one of the pillars of that freedom.

 

I started to post here on this topic to try and show that thete were plenty of Manx Advocates around, women, men, non masons who could replace Deputy Deemster Williamson and of whom we could be proud because of their qualification, experience anjd ability. I still maintain that.

[Gladys]

[*]An advocate cannot generally refuse or give up a case, however hopeless he or she believes that case is. At the English bar there is a 'taxi rank' rule and I assume the same is true of the Manx bar: if a client comes along, is prepared to pay your usual fees, and you are able to represent them, then you will represent them.

 

Interesting bit of legal history, but that is why there is a cord and pocket on the back of a barrister's robe. if I remember correctly, barristers would be one side of the bar (the barrier between the court officals and the public gallery) and if a member of the public wanted a barrister to represent them they would grab the cord and drop some money into the pocket. The barrister could not refuse to represent them.

[John Wright]

IOM does not do cab rank

[Theodolite]

It is not unknown on the Isle of Man for an advocate to abandon a client and leave them with no representation.

 

In one case I am aware of, fleecing the client of all their money first and leaving the person in an extremely vulnerable position.

[John Wright]

It is not unknown on the Isle of Man for an advocate to abandon a client and leave them with no representation.

 

In one case I am aware of, fleecing the client of all their money first and leaving the person in an extremely vulnerable position.

 

That is unprofessional and should be reported to ADT

[stevie]

the problem with the amount of advocates is the legal aid system. the majority of the people who are trying to fight the government and social services are the same people who cant afford to pay for advocates, so therefore they are the people claiming legal aid. now you see the thing is, all the advocates on the island stick together, usually the advocate working for the client on legal aid has probably, at some time or another worked with, and socialises with, the advocate working for the defense (ie. govt / social). so you often get victims who find an advocate to represent them against the govt/social, get so far with the case, come up against difficulty, dont get anywhere further with the case, then throw the case in after two years. this advocate has been paid the legal aid money for his work in the 2 years, yet now the victim has to find another advocate to represent him. the new advocate has to treat it as a new case, so the legal aid money has been lost that was paid to the first advocate. nothing happened. it didn't go anywhere. the money was paid to him for nothing. so then the second advocate tries to advance the case, he tries for 18 months - 2 years, he comes up against too many obstacles and also decides to throw the case in. the victim is now back to square one, 4 years on and no further on. it does make you think though, with the whole of athol street advocates being so close, whether the advocates in this example are ever really working in the clients best interests? what with the way the legal aid money is being thrown at the advocates lately. this, coupled with the way the DLA is set up, puts major strains on the victims, who, in many cases, are unable to work due to whatever accident/incident that started the legal fight in the first place, which has now gone on for years. this is why there are so many advocates on the island, because a lot of them are paid for fuck all.

 

Firstly, can you please punctuate your post properly and split it into paragraphs? It is extremely difficult to read. Secondly, can you come up with one example where this has happened? If so, then please do not recount it here, but report it to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal: it would represent the grossest breach of the rules of conduct by which all advocates are bound.

 

To address a couple of points particularly:

• Inevitably, advocates may have friends who are other advocates. However, when acting for their client they are obliged to put personal relationships aside and act purely and fearlessly in their client's interests. There is a tradition at the English bar (not sure about the Manx one) that barristers do not shake hands when meeting one another, and it has its roots in the need for professional detachment.
   
  
• An advocate cannot generally refuse or give up a case, however hopeless he or she believes that case is. At the English bar there is a 'taxi rank' rule and I assume the same is true of the Manx bar: if a client comes along, is prepared to pay your usual fees, and you are able to represent them, then you will represent them.
  

 

firstly pragmatopian i am sorry about the way my post was, i was really tired at the time. do excuse me.

 

yes you are right, this was an example of an ongoing case at the moment. it has now been going on for almost 7 years. you are also correct when you say this is the grossest breach of the rules of conduct that advocates adhere to. i really can't go into details about it as i'm sure there would be repercussions at this moment. but the reason he cant go to the ADT is, as i said in previous post, the lot of them work together. there needs to be a higher board where you can take cases like this if you think you are being mis-representated.

 

look at it as a game of poker. you have been dealt your hand which nobody else can see. but you are playing in a manx court, against a manx judge, a manx defense, you are fighting the government of the isle of man, and to cap it all YOUR advocate is getting paid by the government. if it was me i would throw my cards in without even looking at them. because you can bet your house on the fact everyone your playing against are showing each other thier hands.

 

i also know an instance when the advocate working on behalf of the governments insurers ( zurich ), also worked for victim support at the same time!! conflict of interests??!!

 

but as i said, this has now been going on for near 7 years. now the whole time this is going on the victim cannot make too much of a fuss, no national newspaper can report his case as there is ongoing mitigation. but if the ongoing mitigation goes on for longer than 7 years, the victim can then go to the press.

 

the victim in the case i am going on about does not want this to happen, he is Manx, he was born here, he grew up here, he does not want the scandal that is the isle of man legal system made known to the world. it was have a bad effect on the island. it would also expose another government section of the isle of man, which would have an even worse effect on the isle of man, so this is why the victim hopes to get it sorted out asap without the involvement of the national press.

 

but you are wrong pragmatopian, as john wright has pointed out, there is no cab rank on the island. so yes, as i said, the advocate can throw his hand in at any time, with the cost being paid out of taxpayers money to the advocate who has effectively achieved nothing!

[John Wright]

As I set up Victim Support and was on the Trustee body for a long time, and did not get paid,pro bono work by advocate shock horror, I can assure you at no time was I working for Zurich

 

What would be wrong with that any way. VS is about crime victims who are generally not going to be compensated by Zurich. Criminal Injuries come out of tax

 

The cab rank rulke has nothing to do with professionalism and dropping cases. The ADT is not just other lawyers. It isn't the Law Society. It is independent and has an independent chairman and a lay membership. They are tough, I can assure you. And if you are not satified your appeal is to the governor

 

Litigation is not played against a judge, the judge is impartial. in fact to demonstarte impartiality mt experience is that judges tyend to err agaiunst government to be sure of neutrality

 

As for thew showing of hands. Well legal aid don't get to see the documenst, the judge only does at trial so that leaves you and your advocate, and the government department and its advocate. You cannot shopw around the hands, only to each other in Discovery.

 

Not surte what you mean by mitigation and seven yeras, some misunderstanding there

 

oh and you don't get payment on account on legal aid, just when case is over

 

Unless I am tarred by the brush of it all, if your friend calls I will see if I an point him in the direction of soemone who could help

[Pragmatopian]

Thanks for enlightening me about the lack of cab rank rule in the Isle of Man. Why is this different from the UK? I have to say I find it a rather sensible rule (among many nonsensical ones) at the English bar

[tameelf]

oh and you don't get payment on account on legal aid, just when case is over

 

so your saying if a advocate working for a cleint seeks off island help with the case (which has been granted on legal aid)

and lets say the advice is totaly unaceptable to the victim under the circumstances. the advocate from the uk decides this is the best advice he can give.... the case hasn't advanced and the advocate from the uk then stops advising the victim

is he not paid anthing either? has he totally wasted his time and travelling expenses?has he actualy LOST his own personal money by trying to advise a cleint???

 

john, can you please explain to me how someone can have an ongoing case against the SS for 7 years?

why are things allowed to go on this long?

as they do always go on about "transparency" can the genrel public look at legal aid costs?

[John Wright]

The UK barrister may be an agent or disbursement. Disbursemenst cn be paid in advance, not fees of Manx Advocates

 

Cases take the time they take, both side have to move and progress. I cannot comment

 

Remember it is a blame culture to win you must prove on blance probabilities that the other side did something wrtong, in a recognisably incorrect way which had adverse consequences or risked them to you or someone in yoyur position

 

As for cab rank, ie you take anyone who comes along, it never worked in England. A criminal barrister woud not take on a trust case etc

 

Yes in court you might take a dock brief, but its rare

 

Advocates are both solicitors and barristers, cab rank has never applied to solicitors

[Pragmatopian]

There are limits to the cab rank rule regarding professional competence e.g. a criminal barrister can decline to represent a client in a trust law case because he doesn't have the expertise. For the most part, though, it's pretty easy to find out which advocates are familiar with which areas of law from their own blurb. Obviously solicitors in the UK aren't subject to these rules, but since the Manx system doesn't recognize the distinction I don't see why that should be a barrier to introducing this rule locally for all advocates.

 

There are significant benefits to this approach in ensuring anyone, no matter how unpopular they or their cause is, can obtain legal representation without too much difficulty. There seems to be a recurring theme here that it can be difficult to find an advocate willing to represent you on the Island even when you're willing to pay, and this would go some way to addressing it.

[Pragmatopian]

On the point of excessive amounts of time being taken to complete cases - this is another matter in which we appear to lag behind England and Wales. Yes, there are still cases that get stuck in the system for year after year, but the civil and criminal procedure rules have been designed to ensure that cases are concluded expeditiously. England and Wales is not a perfect example, but they are at least gradually modernizing procedural rules to redress the balance and make the legal process a tool for all of us, rather than a tool for lawyers.

 

Does the Isle of Man have similar rules providing for active case management, and to encourage settlement in civil cases and provide clear sentencing guidance to inform defendants before submitting their plea? If not, why not?

 

As I believe William Gladstone once said "Justice delayed is justice denied."

[Lonan3]

From personal experience:

 

A number of years ago I was in a position where a local builder tried to sue for possession of my house, claiming non-payment. It was a complicated situation caused by a bank collapse. My only resort was to take a local advocate to task for failing to carry out his duties - and to do so with the assistance of legal aid.

I trawled the length and breadth of Athol Street and was turned away time after time - for a variety of excuses that would have been enough to make anyone's eyes water.

Many of them, 'off the record' admitted that they were reluctant to take action against a fellow advocate.

Fortunately, I eventually found one who was willing to represent me and who did so very effectively - but I believe that I was extremely lucky to do so.

Naturally, I have always turned to that advocate for help and legal advice when I've needed it - and I've continued to have a very low regard for those who refused to assist.

My opinion, therefore, is that there are a small number of advocates - such as the one who took my case on - who are genuinely interested in doing their jobs properly; and a much greater number who are more concerned with the religion of 'billing' than with anything else.

[stevie]

The UK barrister may be an agent or disbursement. Disbursemenst cn be paid in advance, not fees of Manx Advocates

 

Cases take the time they take, both side have to move and progress. I cannot comment

 

Remember it is a blame culture to win you must prove on blance probabilities that the other side did something wrtong, in a recognisably incorrect way which had adverse consequences or risked them to you or someone in yoyur position

 

i think the question tameelf was trying to ask you john was, if a manx advocate seeks off island help from a uk barrister, is the pay scheme as you have explained still used in the same way?

 

i.e. as i explained in my post, if a uk barrister assists the manx advocate in the victims case, and he/she too, gets nowhere with the case and gives his best advice. this advice is not acted upon by the victim, and so the uk barrister drops the case and goes home back to the uk. now tell me, has that barrister actually lost his own personal money that he spent on travel expenses, accomodation etc? or is it paid by the legal aid (who had to grant it in the first case for the uk barrister to even come here)?

 

you say, "to win you must prove that the other side done something wrong". how about if the 'other side' ( social/ govt etc) actually ADMITTED negligence. yet the case has STILL gone on for near 7 years?

 

the victim was in a very good job up until the accident/incident forced him out of work. his records off his previous employer even states it is down to this incident that he can no longer work. you tell me where the justice is.