Number of public access barristers shoots up as BSB bids to relax direct instruction rules further

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

2 December 2011


Deech: move will help access to justice

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is set to remove two key restrictions that fetter more members of the public instructing barristers directly, as the number of barristers eligible for the work soars.

A consultation issued yesterday proposes abolishing the rule that prevents a client who may be eligible for public funding to instruct a public access barrister.

It also seeks to do away with the prohibition on barristers with less than three years’ practising experience from accepting public access instructions.

A record 1,383 barristers completed the public access training course this year, taking the total since the scheme was launched in 2004 to 4,143 – 63% of public access barristers have done the course in the past two years, since the BSB’s decision to extend the areas of practice where public access is permitted.

The current legal aid rule prevents an eligible client from using a public access barrister even if they do not intend to access public funding. The BSB said the key regulatory risks in relaxing the prohibition are that the client might not be in an informed position to decide whether to apply for legal aid or instruct a barrister directly, and that a barrister might accept instructions when it would have been in the client’s best interests to apply for legal aid.

“However, the BSB considers that the regulatory risks are not sufficient to outweigh the importance of the client’s choice of legal representation,” the consultation said. “Relaxing the prohibition would also provide greater access to justice for clients who find themselves without access to legal aid solicitors.”

The proposed new rule adds the safeguard of a duty on barristers to ensure that, before accepting public access instructions, the client is able to make an informed decision about whether to apply for legal aid or to proceed with public access representation.

On the three-year rule, the BSB said there were already adequate safeguards in other areas of its code of conduct that, “combined with appropriate guidance and training, can properly manage any potential risks to the public or the administration of justice” in removing it.

BSB chairman Baroness Deech said: “We take the provisional view that allowing clients who are eligible for legal aid to make an informed decision about whether or not to opt for public access representation will improve access to justice whilst protecting and promoting the interests of clients. 

“We hope that removing the three-year practising experience requirement will also enhance consumer choice by providing consumers with as wide a pool as possible from which to select their representation.”

The consultation closes on 9 March 2012. Find it here.

See feature: Taking public access seriously

Tags: ,



One Response to “Number of public access barristers shoots up as BSB bids to relax direct instruction rules further”

  1. In crime at least BSB restrictions may not be the real problem for PA. Those interested in public access crime should take a look at schedule 7 of the current Legal Aid Bill. Courts (and in particular the Crown Court) will be severely restricted in whether or not they can grant costs orders to successful clients. If clients are entitled to legal aid in the crown court ( as the vast majority are ) they have to take it (whatever the contribution) If they do not, and pay privately, the Court will not be able to make a costs order in their favour even if they are acquitted. Not an attractive prospect for a private payer, whoever he or she may wish to represent .

  2. john binks on December 2nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Legal Futures Blog

Do not fear robot lawyers – fear robot clients

Pulat Yunusov

Tech is famous for its shorter and shorter hype cycles. Robot lawyers were all over the twitters only a few months ago and now people actually yell at you for even mentioning the thing. Of course, robot lawyers should not even have surfaced in the first place because no one is remotely close to building them. Lawyers should not fear for their livelihoods. But there is something that is much more important than robot lawyers. It’s robot clients. Or at least the proliferation of machines, automated transactions, and standardized processes where lawyers once controlled the terrain.

September 20th, 2016