Surge in number of barristers who haven’t been paid fees - Dearbhail McDonald → independent.ie/national-news … 73193.html
I suppose it is logical if the end client is a busted builder or developer or business owner, there are quite a few of them around.
maybe they can sell their ridiculous costumes to clowns and get a real job?
Crucial quote IMO:
What exactly is a real job anyways? Unemployed brick layer? Underpaid overskilled computer programmer? The guy who screws the tops onto toothpaste bottles in a factory somewhere?
A Barrister I know told me that the Department of Health are the worst shower they ever came across for payment. They seem to staff whatever office does it with simpletons who raise all sort of spurious and nonsensical objections.
Gov dept acts commercial and its a disgrace 
Try to get the fucking barristers to pay you. Mean fuckers.
how would you eat without barristers working 28 days a month for 300 euros to grow your rice 
how would you not have shoes without barristers children working shoe factories? how would you have clothes to wear without barristers wives fingers bleeding from sew your clothes how would you have ipods without barristers sons in mines digging with fingers for just sustinence?
Barristers? One billion people in this world live on less than one U.S. dollar a day
Barristers? who do they feed? who do they clothe? well, they will be very useful to draw up the contracts for selling 7% of Ireland’s land mass ( forestry) to the Chinese. Bertie’s working on the deal now. I’m not big on Barristers. I’m not big on politicians. I’m big on people. I’m big on Ireland.
Sounds like they employ … ehhh … barristers 
Bloody Starbucks!
If they don’t pay their staff they should be taken to court, I say.
There’s gotta be a massive slice of irony in your post. You do of course realise that no one in Ireland does any of those things you mention - work 28 days a month for 300 euro, children making shoes, women working in clothes sweat shops, mining etc.
The problem is inequality between rich countries and poor countries. In fact, it is somewhat ironic that many of the Irish people you champion earn €800 or more for doing SFA every month and will complain about getting a small cut. Compare that to the Chinese farmer, and the logical conclusion is that all the people of Ireland are bloodsucking parasites, especially those who don’t work but live off the sweat of the poor chinese wage slave’s back. But if you would rather transfer your own guilt onto a specific profession to make yourself feel better, please do so.
I was in fact, refering to those third world nations Mr. Skeleton, the reason I was doing so was not only to demonstrate the immense imbalance of renumeration for effort that exists internationaly, which we are now seeing adjusted, but also that same immense imbalance that exists in the west, and yes, very much so in Ireland. I agree there are many people getting 800 Euros for doing SFA, some want to work, and certainly i would champion their cause, the ones who ride and abuse the system, I have no time for them. However, there are alot of ‘high end’ people in this country ( including politicians, developers, bankers and yes, even the complacent ‘ride the gravy train’ legal profession) who have not only being raking in millions for doing SFA but also destroying this country at the same time. You are simply reading my statement the way you want to see it. I have no guilt Mr. skeleton, this governments decisions have destroyed my ability to make a living, my commercial rents and rates are far too high, I do not collect any benefits or money in any way from this government, my blood is being sucked and I have still survived, but at the cost of personal savings. Both the government and legal profession have been complacent in the downfall of this country. It is my opinion that the Irish public have had enough of it.
]
reminds me of chris morris
Nothing in your post was directed at the imbalance between the west and the rest of the world, nor was it directed at imbalances that exist internally in the west. It was directed between the imbalance between irish barristers and the lowest paid in a communist one party dictatorship. Hardly a useful analogy.
Your concept of doing nothing is somewhat skewed. I suspect your anger is directed towards anyone who earns more than minimum wage rather than towards any particular issue. I don’t think you have to convince anyone about what certain politicians, developers and bankers have done, but I don’t think you can simply tar them all (and add in the legal profession) as one evil group that has destroyed the country. I fail to see how Joe Higgins, for example, has destroyed the country. Likewise, Joan “Don’t bail out the banks” Burton has tried her level best (unsuccessfully) to prevent much of our woes. As for lawyers, I fail to see how they have destroyed the country any more than binmen do, or doctors do, or factory workers, or architects. All have done a job that pays a certain amount, and none of whom (unless they are ALSO politicians or developers) have had their debts socialised as their businesses failed.
Please explain to me why lawyers are guilty, but you (who have overpaid for commercial rents and rates for a number of years thus inflating the bubble) are without a stain on your character?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to discuss the problems in Ireland, but enough of this bloody minded self-righeousness that we are seeing. Can we have a rational debate or is it just a case of “I’m Dave the butcher and I have done nothing wrong, unlike my neighbour Jo the baker and that Peter across the road, damn candlestick maker”.
I don’t think any job, trade or profession is beyond criticism, but nor do I think that any job, trade or profession is capable of being held entirely responsible. That includes politicians because even if you don’t want to see them, there are a few good politicians out there, and a lot more “OK, a little soapy, but fundamentally honest” ones. By tarring them all with the same brush, you let the really guilty ones like Bertie walk away, and that’s exactly what he wants.
He’s probably laughing to himself now in his yacht in the carribean, just thinking of those crumbums back in Ireland so dissillusioned with Ireland that they won’t bother to vote for opposition parties, thus keeping FF in power. Oh how he laughs when the likes of you with your bloody minded begrudgery prevents honest people getting into politics and actually making a difference.
I suppose everyone hates lawyers/barristers until you need one.
Mostly it’s the client who does something very stupid and then is on their knees for their legal advisor to save them.
Having said that, it’s rare to meet a partner in a large solicitors firm or an experienced Junior Counsel who isn’t super pompous and with a massive sense of entitlement.
On the topic of Solicitors being responsible for getting the fee out of the client - Has anyone else noticed invoices from law firms in which the barristers fee is charged gross (ie including VAT). So you can’t reclaim the VAT on the barristers fee. Does the solicitors firm claim the VAT on this themselves but charge the final client the gross?
ie
Solicitors fee 200
VAT 42
Outlay Senior Counsel 121
Total payable = 363
Am I alone in seeing this. Is there a VAT dodge going on?
Is this a load of self-serving denial? Oh, and Bertie? Nothings over and done yet.
They should charge you vat on the outlay. A builder’s invoice will have vat on labour and vat on materials (usually 21% and 13.5% respectively or whatever they’ve changed vat to now). It should be the same with the solicitor.
There are two models:
solicitor passes barrister’s cost on to client - client is the end user so pays vat on both and can claim vat back on both.
solicitor pays barrister themselves (and probably charges a higher global fee) - in this case only one vat bill is presented, but it is on the global fee.
Thus, in your example, it should be 200 + 42 for solicitor, 100 + 21 for S.C., both items of vat to be paid as vat by customer. Equally, the solicitor could charge you 300 + 63 as an all in and claim some of the barrister’s fees back to themselves.
However, you should check to see whether vat was actually charged by the barrister or not - they may not be registered for vat.
Don’t try to turn this on me. You seem to be the one who is trying to shift the blame on to someone else. The imbalance between the west and the rest of the world is something that affects everyone, even people on the dole in the west. To blame barristers for it is like blaming snowball.
I know what they should be doing. But they weren’t in this instance.
The fact is that you can’t claim back VAT on an invoice unless it is separated out.
I wondered had anyone else noticed this before.
Go back to the solicitor and ask them to do it. Alternatively, ask for the barrister’s fee note / vat invoice, and you can claim it back from that.
From the solicitor’s point of view, it shouldn’t make a difference.
Scenario A: Gets 363 and pays 100 fee plus 21 vat to the barrister. Their vat bill is 63 but they write of 21 = 42
Scenario B: Gets 242 themselves and transmits 121 directly to barrister. Their vat bill is 42 (I don’t think they can do it this way, but for illustrative purposes).
Scenario C: Gets 363 and pays 121 to the barrister. Then claims that their vat bill is 42 and writes off the 21 separate to get a total vat bill of 21. AFAIK, this is illegal.