Friday, 24 June 2011

THE LEGAL GRAVY TRAIN -ALL ABOARD




Bailiff M.Birt





Here is a break down on costs paid to legal firms in Jersey including the Historic Child Abuse Investigation. I have put it up so greater minds than mine can look at it and comment

Team Voice


WRITTEN QUESTION TO H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL  
BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARTIN 
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON MONDAY 20th JUNE 2011 

Question 

Will H.M. Attorney General inform Members of the fees paid to all external legal firms 
undertaking work on behalf of the Law Officers’ Department for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 
with a breakdown of the fees paid to individual firms in each of those years? 

Answer 

We have taken the expression “all external legal firms” to relate to both Jersey legal practices and 
any firms of lawyers practicing outside of Jersey.  

Although not strictly within the terms of the question (not being firms), information is also given 
as to payments made to the chambers of English barristers who may have either given advice to 
the  Attorney General or assisted in the investigation of and prosecution of serious crimes sometimes on an extended basis. Accordingly we have included such chambers of English 
Barristers in the term “all external legal firms”. 


Such external legal firms provide a variety of services to the Law Officers amongst which are: 

1. The prosecution through appointed Crown Advocates of criminal cases on behalf of the Attorney General; 

2. The representation through Advocates of Ministers in civil or family cases; 

3. The provision of advice to the Law Officers’ Department; 

4. Acting as agents for the Law Officers’ Department;  

5. Providing investigatory services in connection with Criminal investigations; and 

6. Providing prosecution support services.  

No distinction is made in the information below between those activities. 

We have given information relating to the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and the costs of representing the Minster for Health and Social Services in public law childrens’ matters separately. In the latter case a sum is paid by Health and Social Services to offset a proportion of that cost. 


No distinction is made in the information below between those activities. 

We have given information relating to the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and the costs of representing the Minster for Health and Social Services in public law childrens’ matters separately. In the latter case a sum is paid by Health and Social Services to offset a proportion of that cost. 

2008 

Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  

Walkers £377,846  - 7 Bedford Row (Eight matters) £683,610* 

Ogier £162,372  - Three New Square £10,968 

Bakerplatt £160,302 - 18 Red Lion Court £7,569 

Appleby £83,041  -  3 Verulam Buildings £3,400 

Carey Olsen £72,313 -  QEB Hollis Whiteman £2,668

Mourant Du Feu & Jeune £64,998  -   David Price Solicitors & Advocates £1,868 

Bedell Cristin £60,184 -    Crown Office Chambers £1,400 

Crill Canavan £25,766 
   
Unless otherwise stated, barristers’ chambers were working on one matter only during the year. 

*In January 2010, in response to a question oric Child Abuse  Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  

Bakerplatt £845,354   -   4-5 Gray's Inn Square £16,500 

Carey Olsen £19,308  -  QEB Hollis Whiteman £3,292 

   Blackstone Chambers £1,750 

2009 

Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  

Walkers £478,819   -  7 Bedford Row (Eight matters) £671,790 

Ozannes £313,666 -   18 Red Lion Court £69,972

Bakerplatt £283,350 -   Baker & McKenzie £28,263 

Appleby £88,580  -    23 Essex Street £14,438

Bedell Cristin £68,968  -    Matrix Chambers £14,678 

Mourant Du Feu & Jeune £59,186 -    Blackstone Chambers £6,000

Carey Olsen £32,494  -    1 Kings Bench Walk £750 

Ogier £30,219
   
Crill Canavan £825  
  
Unless otherwise stated, barristers’ chambers were working on one matter only during the year. 

Historic Child Abuse  Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  

Bakerplatt £1,001,525   -   Herbert Smith LLP £20,494 

   Olswang £9,686 

   Colleton Chambers £5,750 

   7 Bedford Row £875 


2010   

 Deputy Le Herissier, the Attorney General reported the amount paid to 7 Bedford Row in 2008 was £656,182. Due to an administrative oversight, one barrister’s fees were omitted from that total, resulting in the higher figure now being reported.  

2010  

Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  

Baker and Partners £617,557 -  7 Bedford Row (Six matters) £642,105 

Walkers £283,764 -   18 Red Lion Court £80,935 

Ozannes £182,072 - Fulcrum Chambers LLP £41,200 

Mourant Ozannes £177,284  -   David Price Solicitors & Advocates £14,383 

Carey Olsen £131,716   -   Matrix Chambers (Two matters) £14,220 

Appleby £93,982   -   4-5 Gray’s Inn Square £13,225 

Bedell Cristin £91,246  -  3-2 Bedford Row £9,900 

Mourant Du Feu & Jeune £32,183  -   2 Hare Court £5,750 

Crill Canavan £20,629  -   Blackstone Chambers £5,750 

Backhurst Dorey & Crane £6,079  -    6 King’s Bench Walk £3,701 

Jowitt Legal Services £5,980  -   1 Garden Court £2,500 

Ogier £4,245 -  Baker & McKenzie (Two matters) £1,709 

   15 Old Square £750 

 Unless otherwise stated, barristers’ chambers were working on one matter only during the year. 

Historic Child Abuse  
Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms  
Baker and Partners £348,348  7 Bedford Row £11,753 

Children’s Matters 
Jersey Firms   Barristers’ Chambers and UK Firms 

Appleby £360,919  -  Harcourt Chambers £8,000 

Backhurst Dorey & Crane £116,016    

Bakerplatt £12,235    

The Department receives £103,829 of ‘Williamson’ funding from the Health and Social Services Department to offset some of these expenses.  


Looks like some have better seats that others. 7 Bedfor Row and Bakerplatt are doing ok


Team Voice

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually these figures are very interesting because BakerPlatt (as it's blurb says) is a legal and professional services group specialising exclusively in financial services regulation, compliance, money laundering prevention and asset recovery.

Exclusively? So how on earth did it become involved in Child Abuse investigations to such an extent that it managed to pocket over £1 million in 3 years?

One Day said...

Viberts is missing - why?

Anonymous said...

What benefit have 7 Bedford Row given the Jersey tax payer?

Anonymous said...

Chaps,

More than you think, given the two have a "strategic alliance". See http://www.7br.co.uk/home/seven-at-jersey.asp

James

Anonymous said...

Is Baker and partners park of BakerPlatt

Anonymous said...

JERSEY 7BFR

Anonymous said...

who is the "Accounting Officer" for the Law Officers Department and what arrangements are in place for ensuring the impartial selection of service providers and value for money (as the Finance Law requires.) Baker Platt and 7 bedford Row appear to be in favour.

voiceforchildren said...

One Day.

"Viberts is missing - why?"

No idea but I should think Vibert's will be asking themselves, or the Accounting Officer, that question. The answer would be interesting.

voiceforchildren said...

Mind you "Sinel's" are not on there either. I wonder if it is for the same reason as Vibert's not being on there?

Anonymous said...

So I presume that Baker Platts fees could only have arisen from Stephen Baker's participation in the enquiry.

Now, I know that there were not many prosections (although more than the AG wanted!), but how many of those involved Mr Baker?

Anonymous said...

I am not 100% sure but I don't think that Sinel's has a Crown Advocate on the staff. The same might be said for Viberts. If so, that would be why they don't get paid by the AG.

More interestingly, I heard that the AG sent a memo out last year saying that he would be using Crown Advocates rather than external ones where possible. It certainly looks like 7BR, Bakerplatt and various other UK based firms (13 as opposed to 10 local) have still creamed off the lion's share of the external work.

In three years you and I have paid 7 Bedford Row 2 million quid alone!!

Ian Evans said...

DEALING WITH LAW & GOVERNMENT IN JERSEY

Anonymous said...

How much of this went to matters relating to persecuting and prosecuting Stuart? In my country, the amount a client spends on attorney fees can be kept secret under attorney-client privilege. It might be different in Jersey, if the "matters" the firms are billed for, above, can be broken down individually and disclosed further. Sure would be interesting for Stuart's sake to know what they are spending to keep him away from Strasbourg.

Anonymous said...

Re: BakerPlatt, in the first blog comment.

It would be perfectly in character for Jersey to have invested a ridiculous amount in protecting the Finance Industry from the impact of bad publicity from the abuse scandal.

Being run as a corporation, Jersey would have no such interest in investing in proper child care or compensation to victims. Unspun transparency is the enemy of Jersey as it is currently run, and the costs of pretending to be democratic, human rights compliant and transparently accountable is an untold fortune. Not as much is left over for pretending Jersey is humane. That job is left to the press hacks and puppets.

How much was invested in legal advice to advance legitimate prosecutions which never took place?

Anonymous said...

Actually, this gets even more ridiculous because Walkers (No 2 beneficiary in the Jersey list) 'focuses principally on corporate and international finance law with an emphasis on investment funds, private equity and capital markets and structured finance.' - and I calculate that they got well over £1 million also!!!

Can someone in the Jersey legal fraternity confirm whether these billings are as strange as they seem (there must be sum disquiet out there amongst the older Jersey legal firms) or, if they are perfectly reasonable, please could you put our minds at rest?

voiceforchildren said...

"In three years you and I have paid 7 Bedford Row 2 million quid alone!!"

If that's the case, then one could assume that 7 Bedford Row make quite a lot of money from the Jersey Law Offices. Enough money that they would miss it if it was gone. With that in mind, one could come to the conclusion that 7 BR would like to stay "in the good books" (so to speak) with the Jersey Law Offices, or their Accounting Officer.

Wasn't it the Chambers of 7 BR that were the "independent" chambers that agreed with the Jersey's AG to drop a shirt load of Child Abuse cases? If so it's probably another one of those Coincidences.

Didn't Stephen Baker, who's firm (Baker Platt) has made a tidy sum out of the Law Offices come from 7 BR?

The Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, didn't he come from 7 BR?

How do local Law firms feel about some practices getting a very large slice of the cake, when others are left to go hungry??

Mick Birt said...

Yes Baker, Sharp, Jowitt (remember him from the Warren trial..."yes officer go and break the law but don't say I told you to") and quite a few others 'under the radar' are from 7BR.

I also think that the lawyer assigned to work 'with' Lenny Harper, but who spent most of his time in England, was also a prodigy of 7BR.

Anonymous said...

From the link JERSEY 7BFR+

Media applications in respect of publicity

"Members of Chambers are highly experienced in family cases which consider the use and ambit of s97 (2) Children Act 1989, s12 Administration of Justice Act 1960, and the “parallel anaylsis” of competing Convention Rights. They are familiar with the drafting of Reporting Restriction Orders and Injunctions which may be necessary to preserve the confidentiality of some or all of those involved in Children Act cases -be they children, parents or professionals. They are able to advise upon issues surrounding the use of anticipatory injunctions against the media in certain cases, the process and procedure to be adopted, and the desirability or otherwise of the same within the context of a need for accountability of the family courts to the public."

Related areas of work

"Members of Chambers have experience in related proceedings, including claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, compensation claims arising out of alleged abuse within local authority care, educational negligence claims, public inquiries where the welfare of children is in issue (including the North Wales Child Abuse (Waterhouse) Inquiry and Leicestershire (Beck) Inquiry) and claims falling within the jurisdiction of the Care Standards Tribunal. A number of members have particular expertise in challenging decisions to restrict or bar individuals from working with children and vulnerable adults."

"We regularly advise and represent local authorities and others, including in respect of judicial review proceedings, in all aspects of children and adult services with regard to statutory liabilities towards children, families and the vulnerable. Members have also handled cases involving age assessments."


So this is part of the big bill Jersey to Jersey taxpayers:"A number of members have particular expertise in challenging decisions to restrict or bar individuals from working with children and vulnerable adults."

DISGUSTING! WHERE IS THE AMOUNT FOR ADVISING HOW TO PROTECT CHILDREN!!!!

Anonymous said...

OK - a little bit of detective work - I believe that there is only one partner of Walkers who could be involved in this work (all the rest are involved in finance or property) - Julian Gollop - whose focus areas are 'criminal work for both the Defence and Prosecution and also personal injuries claims for both Plaintiffs and Defendants. He regularly appears as Counsel before the Royal Court of Jersey.'

Could his bill of over £1 million pounds have possibly arisen from advising the SOJ on dealing with claims against them by the abuse victims? Surely not.

Anonymous said...

Is the government paying exorbitant sums to some of the world's most expensive law firms, for the purpose of protecting the government from its own, most vulnerable people? You know, the same vulnerable people who are footing the bill for the law firms.

STUART WAS RIGHT AGAIN!

Anonymous said...

Did they help get the McGuires off the hook?

Anonymous said...

No, you are wrong. They are not saying that only Jullian Gollop works in this area. This is the quote from their website. Do better detective work, or don't defend the indefensible..

"A NUMBER OF MEMBERS HAVE PARTICULAR EXPERTISE IN CHALLENGING DECISIONS TO RESTRICT OR BAR INDIVIDUALS FROM WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS."

Nurses? Bad doctors? Abusers in the education department? Teachers? Care givers?

Anonymous said...

I didn't say that he was the only one who worked in this area, what I said was he was the only partner who could be involved in this area. I am well aware that he will have legal assistants to help him. However, either Walkers have been acting on behalf of the government or they have been acting on behalf of the victims. They can't act for both sides - so which is it?

Anonymous said...

Sorry. You are right. I was just so angry to read their website. It is hard to wrap my head around the amount of government complicity in Jersey child abuse and the willingness of law firms to challenge the protection of the vulnerable. If someone is barred from working with children or vulnerable adults, WHO is challenging them being barred like that? The individual who was barred? Or, more frightening, the government? I am really p'd off about this. And maybe they do think they have a right to work both sides of a case if they can find a loophole. There is only one side offering them big payouts, and it is not abuse victims.

Anonymous said...

No problem - I think that we are all a bit angry.

By the way, I don't think that we can criticise Walkers or Gollop here, they're only working on behalf of their client (States of Jersey). The client knows their fee scale and hopefully all fees would have been reviewed.

Its the client who I have the moral dilema with.

rico sorda said...

Thanks to the people who have been commenting on this. Team Voice posted this as we new there are better minds than ours out there who can deconstruct the above figures.

Seeing as it was Deputy Hill that posted the question what would you suggest his follow up question should be?

RS

rico sorda said...

STUART SYVRET & 7BR

RS

Anonymous said...

hi team,

my first observation is the question is at the same time to vague ('all external legal firms')
and to focused, why only work undertaken on behalf the law officers' dept.,surley other states depts. use outside legal advice/services.

the AG immediately jumps on this vagueness by defining, in their own (legalese) words, the term "all external legal firms"

Do the first two sentences of the AGs answer make it clear which type of firms are or are not included? yea right!

After defining the term 'all external legal firms', the AG goes on to qualify what 'varity of services' these sums refer to.
no mention here of defence expenses (is Bakers fees in the Curtis Warren case included?)

whilst the AG mentions 'firms','practices'and 'barristers chambers' what about fees from those other than the above- like partnerships,incorporated businesses and individual freelance work- think Pitchers and Sumption etc. Also nothing in the field of law drafting.

Look at the headings for each year, there 'seems' to be a typo or something,
there is an extra space between the words Jersey Firms (and) Barristers' Chambers
this typo is repeated whenever these 4 words are used together, have they 'missed' a comma or an and? or does it mean Jersey Firms Barristers' Chambers,could they have left out Jersey Firms that are not Barristers'Chambers?

I think any follow up question or request for clarification should be carefully crafted leaving little wriggle room

c

Anonymous said...

"Could his bill of over £1 million pounds have possibly arisen from advising the SOJ on dealing with claims against them by the abuse victims? Surely not."

Mourant Du Feu & Jeune is the law firm acting for the SOJ in regards to the claims being made against the SOJ by the abuse victims and more than three years down the line, absolutely nothing has been achieved.

"I also think that the lawyer assigned to work 'with' Lenny Harper, but who spent most of his time in England, was also a prodigy of 7BR."

Correct, that was the delightful Simon Thomas who likes to give orders from a train station. He was the one who told Lenny to let the Bonners go without charge, you know, the couple who liked to batter children with a cricket bat. Big mistake, huge! Carrie

Anonymous said...

I believe the Law officers were involved in Mr Powers first suspension only to protect Jerseys reputation, secondly to ensure the States of Jersey were protected.

Anonymous said...

Two options I see, first the accounting officer should be able to provide a breakdown of all legal costs relating to the historical child abuse enquiry (especially personal injury claims against the SOJ), including the names of the relevant legal firms. There would be a letter of engagement for each matter that a particular legal firm was instructed on and their fee notes would relate to each particular matter. Legal firms do not bunch their fee notes.

If that is not forthcoming, then ask for a breakdown, as above, for legal fees paid for the previous three years and then compare with the last three - if those three years are fairly similar to each other on a year by year basis, then you should be able to rough guess the cost of the abuse enquiry by calculating the increase.

Anonymous said...

How about a breakdown of Stephen Baker's fees for representing Warren? Nice little earner!

Anonymous said...

This breakdown of the money trail is where you will finally see Jersey's scandal become important internationally. This is where you will begin to uncover the numerical facts which tell their own undeniable story.

Ian Evans said...

TROUBLE FOR THE CLOWN PRINCE!

Ian Evans said...

THE SIHT HITS THE FAN

Anonymous said...

this is a classic piece of lawyer script

question:-
"what about 'firms' that are not barristers chambers?"

deception by redefining

c

wv- audit haha

Cookies said...

Thank you for very good blog about Radon Mitigation. It's very nice.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to comment on this long after it was posted.

I think it is incredible that this issue has not been seized upon by more people.

Questions must be asked as to why certain firms and uk chambers are preferred. What is the selection process? Do they tender for work or not?.

Why 7BR? What we know is that our Bailiff was at 2 Crown Office Row (now 7BR), a number of the crown advocates are ex-7BR and of coruse our new SG is ex-7BR. It all seems very cosy.

It is incredible the amount of instructions 7BR take from States departments and the JFSC. These figures just relate to the historic abuse issue. I suspect we would all be shocked by the true figure spent on external adivce on all matters and even more shocked as to which firms and barristers get the lion share.

It is a very unfair system in which local lawyers and good uk counsel who would do a better job for less money are shut out.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking the initiative to assisting in the task to overhaul the Crooked, Corrupt [i.e. an Impairment of Integrity] Conspiratorial [i.e. where two or more persons agree to commit a criminal offence or civil wrong] elements that link to Masonry in JERSEY and to Masonry in LONDON - the unspeakable aspect to which the senior members of the Legislature, the Executive & the Judiciary of JERSEY have sworn a PRIVATE OATH that overrides the PUBLIC OATH of every person in any position of seniority who acts in the administration of the public service of Jersey and/or Great Britain; [i.e. England, Wales, & Scotland], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland; and the British Isles [that is the UK + the 3 Crown Dependencies of i) Jersey; ii) Guernsey & iii) the Isle of Man].

The issue that no one dares speak about in Jersey is the corrupt PRIVATE Oath of Freemasonry. Why?

Is this due to Ignorance?;
Is this due to Membership?;
Is this due to Laziness in not being prepared to undertake the necessary amount of research?
Is it due to Fear?
What is THE REASON?

In every matter of Law the following considerations need to be weighed with great care:
- FACTS
- EVIDENCE
- LAW
- PROSECUTION [IS HE INDEPENDENT?][Linkage from the Jersey Crown Officers to 7BR, Gray's Inn Square, London - the Chambers that are notorious for ALL being linked to being "ON THE SQUARE" (i.e. Freemasons)]
- JUDGE [IS HE INDEPENDENT?][There is NO Independence of the Judiciary in Jersey - there can Never be any Independence of the Judiciary in Jersey as they are notorious for ALL being linked to being "ON THE SQUARE" (i.e. Freemasons)]
- CONFLICTS OF INTEREST [between PRIVATE INTEREST [If a Freemason, HE MUST go to the aid of any Mason who asserts HE is IN DISTRESS - like the late Jimmy SaVILE (Never any possibility of a prosecution for him)(+ 2 Knighthoods from the Pope who is a Freemason & from the Queen who is the Grand Patroness of Freemasonry)(her husband is also a Mason)(the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of Masonry)]& PUBLIC DUTY to act "in the Interests of Justice"]
- MASONIC LINKAGE [that ensures there is NO semblance of JUSTICE]

DO WE REALLY WANT TO CONTINUE IN IGNORANCE, EXPOITATION, INSENSITIVITY, HYPOCRISY, CORRUPTION & CROOKS WHO HAVE PERVERTED & MISAPPROPRIATED THE ISLAND OF JERSEY AS THEIR OWN PERSONAL FEUDAL FIEFDOM.

TIME TO OUT THE FREEMASONS OF JERSEY - FROM THE BETRAYING BAILHACHE BROTHERS WHO WORSHIP BAPHOMET, TUBALCAIN, JAHBULON, LUCIFER & SATURN [enjoying the "TUNNELS OF TYPHON"] TO THE CORRUPTING CESSPIT OF CROWN OFFICERS OF CHIUN, CONNECTING TO THE MASONIC MEMBERS OF THE MERCENARY MEDIA TO THE POLITICAL PEONS OF PRIDE & PREJUDICE!