Barristers’ clerks attack law firms over contract payment terms


money

Many clerks concerned by ‘best endeavours’ approach

Law firms are imposing contracts on barristers they would never sign themselves, the chair of the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks (IBC) has said.

Brian Lee said most chambers had signed up to standard terms negotiated last year between the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) and the City of London Law Society (CLLS), which incorporated some of the revised contractual terms published by the Bar Council at the same time.

Mr Lee said that under Term B of the contract, solicitors are obliged only to use their “best endeavours” to pay counsel.

“The problem for barristers is that we don’t do due diligence,” Mr Lee said. “If solicitors have a difficulty with a client, they never share information with barristers or chambers.

“Under these contracts, they can say ‘sorry, we used our best endeavours’ to obtain payment and can avoid sharing losses with barristers.

“No law firm would ever agree to a contract like this with a client, but barristers do because they feel they have no alternative.”

Earlier this month, it emerged in a papers for a Bar Standards Board (BSB) meeting that the regulator had received reports of solicitors using “bullying” tactics to impose their own contractual terms on barristers.

In a speech to the recent IBC annual dinner, Mr Lee said the new BSB Handbook, introduced on 6 January, required chambers to contract “with each solicitor on every new set of instructions”, leading to a “huge explosion in paperwork”.

Mr Lee said that he and many other clerks were very concerned how the ‘best endeavour’ payment terms were found to be acceptable. “How can it be right that a leading City law firm, with perhaps a £1bn turnover, can contract with a junior barrister, say charging £50 an hour, on the basis they will use best endeavours to pay them?

“No law firm would enter into this contract, no expert would agree such a contract, but the Bar is lumbered with it. It does the legal profession no good at all and you wonder of all professions, how has this happened.”

On its website, the Commercial Bar Association said the terms of the COMBAR/CLLS contract were “a product of negotiation” and “do not represent the optimal terms on which COMBAR barristers might contract with solicitors”.

The statement went on: “In certain respects (most importantly the absence of a default basis for payment of barristers) the terms reflect the fact that no common position could be agreed.

“At no stage has COMBAR indicated to the CLLS that the terms have been agreed by or on behalf of the individuals or chambers that are members of COMBAR.”

Tags:




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.

Blog


NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.


Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.


Lawyers who break AML rules face bigger, more public fines

Last month, two all-party parliamentary groups published a joint economic crime manifesto that sets out a “comprehensive list of pragmatic reforms” designed to tackle the UK’s dirty money crisis.


Loading animation