Bar Council: Comparison websites “utterly inappropriate for barristers”

Townend: LSB’s work on NDAs is absurd

The use of online comparison websites for barristers is “utterly inappropriate”, the Bar Council has said.

It is an example of the Legal Services Board’s (LSB) “regulatory overreach”, according to Bar Council vice-chair Sam Townend KC, with its “absurd” approach to non-disclosure agreements another.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is currently running a pilot to see if review and comparison websites could work but Mr Townend said they were “utterly inappropriate for our referral profession with its sophisticated professional clientele”.

Such an approach also “ill sits with the fact that we owe a balance of duties to the court as well as our clients (and the simpler fact that in many cases, and despite our best efforts, clients will properly lose following trial).

“This is not to mention the serious libel and detrimental diversity implications of allowing lay clients free rein with online reviews.”

The comments, made on the Bar Council website, are the latest in the Bar Council’s longstanding criticism that the LSB has gone beyond its remit of overseeing the frontline regulators like the BSB and become a “market actor, seeking to lead or influence the market”.

This was activity “properly for politicians and policymakers and not regulators”, and causing “a greater regulatory and cost burden on members of the Bar” as a result.

Another example was the LSB mandating the regulators “to consider and implement standardisation and unbundling of the provision of legal services”, Mr Townend said.

He criticised the LSB’s policy statement last year on ongoing competency, “raising the spectre of compulsory and regular revalidation by practising barristers, despite there being no positive evidence of any systemic problem of competency at the Bar”.

As we reported last week, the BSB’s response to the policy statement left open the possibility of reaccreditation in the future.

Mr Townend rounded too on the LSB’s plan for a call for evidence on the role lawyers could play in ensuring that NDAs were not misused.

“This is an absurd enterprise that the LSB has embarked upon,” he said. “While we may not like them or their use, and I for one do not, at present NDAs are lawful. It is for Parliament to consider whether they should be made unlawful, or perhaps made unenforceable unless both parties to them are legally represented.

“Whilst they remain lawful, if a lawyer is instructed to draft an NDA on behalf of their client, that is what they must do, in line with the professional principle that authorised persons should act in the best interests of their clients.

“Accordingly, the call for evidence and any subsequent public policy work or regulatory activity is not something that the LSB should be involved with because it has nothing to do with the LSB’s functions under the 2007 Act.”

Mr Townend argued that it was no appropriate for the LSB to spend – “in substantial part without real accountability” – the Bar’s or consumers’ money “on matters for which Parliament has not deemed it has a role”.

The KC revealed that the Bar Council has been lobbying the government and Parliament to review the LSB.

Earlier this month, he went on, following a request by the Bar Council, “the LSB wrote to say that it did not object to the Bar Council’s request for a Ministry of Justice departmental review of its role and performance, the last one having taken place in 2017”.

Mr Townend said: “This is welcome and we continue to press the government to implement such a review without delay.”

    Readers Comments

  • Leo Goatley says:

    My only reservation to the Bar Council’s declared utter horror at the prospect of such an online comparison site is that it may in some way counterbalance the nauseating, self-serving, self-regulated drivel that gets served up in established directories. The unobjective rule of such sales puff appears to be ‘everyone a winner and a cut above all the others’; which apart from being ludicrous is really unhelpful.

  • H Edwards says:

    In years gone by the call was that the market should be allowed to decide, and however imperfect it is it would as it always has find balance. Comparison sites are just a modern expression of the markets views and will. Let them be so, albeit moderated. If they are not allowed then we must also ban the self serving back slapping directories so popular of late.

    Run by a narrow elite, promoted beyond any sensible value, with content decided upon by unqualified bean counters reliant upon the pals and those with financial interests of those sought to be included. They are not the markets view of the value of ability of those listed. They are self serving. If one is allowed then so too the other.

    Let’s see a little true market evaluation in there.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Commercial real estate: The impact of AI and climate change

There is no doubt climate change poses one of the most complex challenges for the legal industry; nonetheless, our research shows firms are adapting.

Empathy, team and happy clients

What has become glaringly obvious to me are the obvious parallels between the legal and financial planning professions, and how much each can learn from the other.

Training the next generation lawyer

Since I completed my training and qualified over 10 years ago, a lot has changed. It’s. therefore imperative that law firms adapt and progress their approach to training and recruitment.

Loading animation