[pjc50]

There always remains the possibility that you may not be able to find a suitable one at all: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.

That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)

[pbhjpbhj]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... is an interesting case indeed. It's like a DoS on justice, make sure that your case requires the reading of a large document and you can get off because the lawyers, silks, etc., will refuse the work.

This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on.

Also, aside, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a job for free under obligation to family/friends.

--

Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a typo.

[pjc50]

Monarch does not have those powers; in any case this is effectively a pay dispute.

The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and therefore cost money.