header-logo header-logo

High earners list published

07 May 2009
Issue: 7368 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Warning that payments to lawyers and firms alike have potential to mislead

Leading fraud silk Charles Salmon QC, of 2 Hare Court, has topped the list of high earners for barristers in criminal legal aid, with earnings of more than £1m.

In the civil legal aid category, Simon Hirst earned £442,000, family barrister Michael Keehan QC, of St Ive’s Chambers, earned £372,000, family barrister Alison Ball QC, of 1 Garden Court, earned £371,000 and Paul Storey QC earned £354,000.

Criminal barristers Howard Godfrey QC, of 2 Bedford Row, and David Whitehouse QC, of 3 Raymond Buildings, earned £988,000 and £959,000 respectively, according to Ministry of Justice figures for the year ending 31 March 2008.

Among firms, criminal law firm Tuckers earned £9.3m, considerably more than the second highest-earning firm, The Johnson partnership, at £6.2m, and, in third and fourth place, Forbes Solicitors with £4.6m and Kaim Todner with £4.2m. In the civil category, London firm Duncan Lewis earned £6.2m last year, Switalskis came second with £4.6m and Stephensons third with £4.3m.

A Bar Council spokesperson said: “The payments to barristers listed by the Ministry of Justice all include VAT and make no allowance for expenses of up to 30%.

“They were paid under the old scheme where the court assessed the appropriate fee at the end of a case. After assessment by the court, each of the payments was specifically approved by the Legal Services Commission. Under the new system for Very High Cost Cases scheme, fees paid are very much less.

“Even under the old system payments on this scale were never typical. Of the 10 barristers named, the top five and one of the remainder were all instructed to act for different defendants in the prosecution of Terry Adams by the Serious and Organised Crime Office. This was one of the biggest criminal cases ever mounted, finally concluding in March 2007. At least one of the QCs had been briefed as early as July 2003. The payments therefore all cover several years of work. They are not annual payments or gross payments, and to present them as in any way typical would be highly misleading.”

Issue: 7368 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll