Do you think a lawyer deserves to get paid £22,000 for three days' work?

That is what Michael Mansfield QC was asking for in return for his work on a hearing in the House of Lords.

He says pay scales in the lower courts are not applicable to the House of Lords. And with a lack of pre-set fees it is particularly hard for publicly-funded lawyers to work out what is thought to be reasonable.

But now five senior judges have reviewed fees charged in legal aid cases. Their report sets out new guidelines that will close the gap between barristers' bills and charges allowed by court authorities.

Within the review the £22,000 Michael Mansfield QC asked for was reduced to £12,000 by the Lords. A legal aid bill for £37,500 by Peter Feinberg QC was cut to £16,000.

Do you think these top barristers should ask for such large amounts of taxpayers' money? Are they taking advantage of the fact that there is no "going rate"?

Law Society President, Michael Matthews, says there should be a reasonable salary - equivalent to any top professional who is being paid out of public funds. He suggests no more than £100,000 a year would be acceptable.

"The ability of QCs to charge the going rate for legal aid work has to some extent brought the whole legal aid scheme into disrepute," he said.

Michael Mansfield QC insists that working in the House of Lords demands more than just putting the hours in.

"You are not only looking at the preparation, but at the presentational skills too. That is why people, at the top end of the profession like myself, are employed to do these cases at that level," he said.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine is determined to protect taxpayers' money by introducing fixed fees wherever possible.

What do you think?

Are lawyers greedy?

Your reaction in full

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©