A JUDGE savagely attacked defence lawyers yesterday, accusing them of deliberately underestimating how long cases would last so they could bump up their fees. In the District Court, Judge Sweeney said lawyers were 'playing the system' and sacrificing the interests of their clients so they could line their own pockets. He said it was more profitable for solicitors and barristers if they handled five one-day cases in a week, rather than a single trial which ran from Monday to Friday. The judge claimed defence lawyers frequently estimated cases would last just one day when it should have been clear they could not be completed that quickly. This situation usually resulted in the case being adjourned. And clients sometimes had to wait up to six months before their case came back to court. Lawyers, however, were still paid for attending court on those days when the case was expected to resume but did not. 'That is clearly the rationale behind so many obviously two or three-day cases being ultimately shortened to one day by defence lawyers,' Judge Sweeney said. He said: 'Defence lawyers deliberately shorten the amount of time to an unreasonable level. There should be no shortening of cases without the consent of the court.' His remarks relate to the 'running list' system, introduced recently in an effort to ensure that short cases involving just one defendant receiving legal aid were dealt with quickly by the courts. Lawyers estimate how long a case will take and this information is passed to the Legal Aid Department. Judge Sweeney's outburst was sparked by a robbery case - due to start yesterday - which defence solicitors estimated would be a one-day trial. 'I agree this could be done in one day if we sat for 24 hours non-stop without a tea break or lunch break,' he said. But defence barrister Alan So told the judge that in this particular case there had been no attempt to deliberately bump up fees. 'I consider it to be a misjudgment to put it as one day. I apologise,' he said. Judge Sweeney called it 'an insult to the court' to suggest that inaccurate estimates of this kind were innocent mistakes. 'If this was the first time, I would accept there may have been an error. But it has been happening almost every week for the past two or three months,' he said. Judge Sweeney said lawyers got their 'big fee', but the case would not go on. It was a much easier day's work for a lawyer to come to court and get a case adjourned than it was sitting through a trial, he said. The judge said lawyers were paid more for acting for their client on the first day of a trial than on following days. Mr So replied that the difference was 'not dramatic'. He had asked that the trial - which the judge said would last three days - start yesterday and continue on Monday. But Judge Sweeney refused the request, saying that other cases already listed in his court for Monday would be disrupted. He adjourned the case and told defendant Pao Wing-hong, now being held in custody, that he might have to wait a few weeks before appearing in court again. Pao already has been waiting six months for his trial. 'If his interests were being borne in mind all along, his lawyers would allow enough time for his listing to be allocated,' Judge Sweeney said. He complained he was often confronted with a fait accompli, leaving him no option except adjournment. Mr So stuck to his defence of the defence solicitors in the robbery case, K. Y. Lo and Company. He said the estimate that the case would last just a day was only tentative. Mr So stressed that he and his instructing solicitors had been on time with every other case they had been involved in this week. The barrister said that if the trial had started yesterday, the implications if it continued on Monday would not be so serious because the defendants in other cases due to be heard by Judge Sweeney in the same court on Monday and Tuesday were on bail. Judge Sweeney's stance was backed by one defence solicitor who said: 'I agree with him. I think this is what some lawyers do.' But another said the judge had insulted defence solicitors by suggesting they were deliberately trying to get more fees.
