*/
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.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim