Taking public access seriously

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

29 November 2011

The Bar Council is urging barristers to embrace public access. But, says John Binks, the reality of doing the work will come as a rude shock to many barristers. It can be done, but they will need to revisit the way they do business, including the chambers model

Binks: the work the Bar seeks to target is, in reality, the cream of private client work

Bar Council chairman Peter Lodder, quite rightly, encouraged the Bar at its recent annual conference to take up public access as a stepping stone for developing business structures that will be eventually fit to credibly bid for price competitive contracts.

Such a move, in principle, makes sound economic sense, but how realistic is this for the average chambers?

Whilst in itself encouragement cannot be criticised, the Bar should take a measured look at what public access truly offers them, why greater advances have not been made since its introduction in 2004 and how well equipped they genuinely are to compete in a solicitor-dominated market where competition is set to become ever tougher.

What is the market for public access?

The chairman of the Bar speculated that some clients may chose privately paid public access as an alternative to legal aid in instances where contributions are particularly high. In crime, Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulations on direct access would not seem to permit this.

The BSB public access rules prevent accepting instructions in any proceedings in which it is likely the lay client would be eligible for public funding. If legal aid is available – even subject to contribution (ie, virtually all cases in the Crown Court) – counsel cannot offer direct access, whatever the clients wish.

There may be some scope for direct access crime work in the magistrates’ courts. However, with notable exceptions, as the Crown Court remains the preserve best suited to those with the training and skills of the barrister, the magistrates’ court remains the preserve of the solicitor. Can a barrister offer a service in a magistrates' court to match the services of a good local solicitor? In most cases, no.

The BSB guide for members of the public considering direct access offers its view on the competing advantages of the professions: “Barristers are trained as specialist advisers and advocates… they become involved where expert legal advice is needed, where documents need to be drafted for their clients to use, or for advocacy. Solicitors also give advice to and draft documents for their clients to use or may instruct a barrister to provide this service. Some solicitors also provide advocacy services to their clients, although many prefer to instruct a barrister to do this.”

The BSB, as independent regulator, seems to offer the public a singularly one-sided description of the comparative services offered. Chambers seriously planning to enter the public access market would accept the BSB assessment of the competition at their peril.

Private law ancillary relief is rightly indentified by Peter Lodder as an attractive area. The Bar should, however, recognise that this is equally the work that is the most financially attractive to many of its direct solicitor competitors. Despite the apparent BSB view, provision of expert solicitor advocacy in family matters, in addition to the expert preparation there has always been, is becoming the norm for the majority of solicitor family practitioners.

The best firms have invested many years in building and maintaining family client bases; they invest in expensive high street presences and have built firm or corporate-wide reputations. The wig and gown by comparison has for many years (so we are told) preserved the anonymity of individual barristers in the eyes of the public. In winning the work the Bar now desires, reputation is everything and anonymity is nothing.

Solicitors have invested heavily in building the client bases they have; it would be wrong of the Bar to think there is an open market into which they can now elect to move.

Dealing with a client direct is a particular skill

The ability to obtain detailed accurate instructions, sort the wheat from the chaff, and quickly build a relationship of trust that enables a case to be moved forward efficiently and effectively are hallmarks of a good solicitor.

The approach that may be taken to convince a client of an argument outside court is very different to that which would be employed in the more removed atmosphere of a solicitor’s office. These are skills that may be developed, but the Bar cannot assume that they already have the skills necessary to do this work.

Barristers may occasionally flatter themselves that they can effectively convince a client to accept an unwelcome reality when an instructing solicitor has for many months tried and failed. That conversation may, however, quite literally be at the door of the courtroom, when the client is under immense pressure and may be dealing with someone they met for the first time 15 minutes before.

Dealing with a client direct is very different from dealing with a client in partnership with a solicitor. Do the Bar recognise the differing skills required? The fact that the required training for a public access barrister is given within the course of a single day would indicate not. The skills that are truly required are either not understood or not valued by many at the Bar.

The requirements of the client

In many cases, client needs support; they need to be able to contact the person dealing with their case and discuss it with them, often on a frequent basis. In family matters this is not the exception – it is the norm.

Firms carrying out crime work have provided structured 24-hour services for decades; such services are becoming more and more common in family practices. In the age of 24-hour banking, clients expect 24-hour law.

Are barristers who may often spend the majority of their days away from chambers in court, and crucially without professional fee-earner back-up to support them back at chambers, really equipped to provide such a service?

It’s nice to get paid

There may have been a time when some solicitors would not be so indelicate as to require money on account in private paying cases. For the majority, those days (or those firms) are gone. The unbilled funds paid on account are, of course, ‘client money’ and relevant accounting rules, and an enhanced insurance premium not enjoyed by the Bar, do apply.

Counsel cannot request or take payment on account; their professional rules do not permit it. Chambers may currently feel they spend over-long pursuing solicitors, the Legal Services Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service for fees, but dealing with individual private clients is a whole separate issue they are not geared up to deal with. The inability to take payment on account is a major stumbling block.

How efficient really is the Bar?

The Bar’s first response to the question ‘why chose a barrister?’ is doubtless that a barrister is the cheaper option. The Bar would say the barrister is operating within a more efficient business model than the solicitor, evidenced by a far lower percentage overhead. This is an oft-quoted assumption.

A low percentage overhead may, however, be generated as much by a higher gross fee as by the actual efficiency with which the work is despatched. Further, the traditional role of the solicitor has been to provide for the Bar much of the back-office function it has needed to operate. The solicitor has been responsible for attracting and maintaining the client to deliver to the barrister.

The Bar must understand that there is cost associated with this process – it doesn’t just happen, and to date the solicitor has shouldered that cost. Additionally, within the solicitor model there is the potential for delegation of work, and the opportunity to split out single cases and ensure that at any point in a case work is not carried out by staff that are overqualified (or more accurately overpaid) for the task.

Admittedly not all solicitors are currently employing such efficiencies to their maximum, but in an ever more competitive market, the people with whom the Bar will be in competition will be. Barristers working within the chambers model simply cannot replicate this approach.

The Bar’s perceived direct access client is educated and erudite. They are able to give clear concise instructions of what they want. They will be cool, unemotional and organised. They will always keep their appointments. They will be patient with their barrister, never require advice as a matter of urgency and never ring up their barrister simply to ask ‘what is happening?’. They will understand that their barrister is a busy person. They will be a private payer – and they will pay.

The work the Bar seeks to target is, in reality, the cream of private client work. There is little of this around, and if it wants that work, the Bar should expect to have to fight for it.

None of the above should make the Bar turn from public access, and this is not an argument that it should. There are, however, issues that should be carefully considered and catered for within any business model designed to offer such services.

The time is past when the Bar can simply expect to announce the availability of the direct access barrister , even (as Peter Lodder tells us in the case of one chambers) in magazines published in ‘reasonably affluent areas’ and expect clients to arrive.

Models will undoubtedly be developed by the Bar which can compete, and which offer a springboard for price competition. Will it be the medieval chambers-based system that the Bar Council seems set on preserving? Probably not.

John Binks is a solicitor and founder member of the Bar Consultancy Network. He was formerly a senior manager with the Legal Services Commission and member of the Carter review. He is currently working with a number of chambers which are preparing for the future

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “Taking public access seriously”

  1. I think it is easy to suggest that the Bar do not know how to deal with and nurture clients but it insults the quality and capability of the Bar to believe that we do not know how to deliver our services to the ultimate consumer. It also offends the integrity of the Bar to suggest that PA work is simply and only about reaching wealthy private clients.
    If people listened to what Peter Lodder QC, the chairman of the Bar, said at this year’s Bar Conference and discussed PA with practitioners, it would become apparent that PA provides a legal service to many people who would not otherwise be able to afford it through the traditional route of a solicitor instructing a barrister thereby generating two sets of legal fees.
    Just as an example, the magistrates courts are not the preserve of solicitors and if clients were really obtaining a better service through solicitors then barristers would not still be doing a vast amount of work there instructed by a solicitor who does not attend.
    It is time the myths were debunked and the scare-mongering stopped. Whether a solicitor and/or barrister is involved in litigation, the quality and affordability of the service are the keystones. PA now has a track record to show that the Bar can work alone but there will always be cases where both sides of the profession need to work together and cases where a barrister is not needed.
    Rather than trying to perpetuate harmful differences between the two sides of the profession, real or otherwise, given the constrained financial climate and lack of public funding, all lawyers who are committed to providing a service whatever the wealth of the client can use the changes in the way lawyers operate to deliver that service. Ultimately the consumer will choose the route that suits their pocket and legal requirements best. PA is quite capable in many cases at all levels of providing such service.

  2. Kevin Leigh on November 30th, 2011 at 9:28 am
  3. I am afraid when I read the phrase ‘offends the integrity of the Bar’ it feels more than a little pompous – and seems to crystallise the argument in the piece that as a body the bar may not be well equipped to deal with the public direct. Everything the Bar Council has done over the last 10 years in any negotiations on public funding has been centred around preserving elements of the system that favour the bar and frankly making sure the Bar keeps as much money as possible.
    In general I think it is fair to say that the Bar does not really get what a solicitor does and does not understand the nature of the solicitor client relationship and the time invested by solicitors in building that relationship. There seems an assumption from the bar that they have all the skills necessary to do PA work – and I for one am not really sure why.
    Again in general I do not think it can be argued that the bar can provide a better service than good local solicitors in the magistrate’s courts. I say this after spending 20 years in such courts. Of course there may very rarely be a case that is so specialised that it is better suited to a barrister, but mostly counsel may be used ( and a lot less frequently than they used to be) because the solicitor cannot get there, or ( unfortunately and quite wrongly in my view in legal aid cases) because they may be cheaper. This does not equal better.
    I fully agree PA may have lots to offer. I also agree that the bar has to be realistic with regards to the challenges if they want to offer it successfully

  4. Steven Jones on December 2nd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
  5. I feel this article misses the point a little. The BSB expanded the remit of Public Access because there is a demand and this demand will increase. Customers of legal services are undoubtedly becoming more and more savvy and will in future pick and choose which parts of services they require. If they need help understanding some point of law and the issuing of proceedings they may well seek the services of a solicitor. If they require a specialist advocate they may choose to instruct a barrister. What the BSB provides is a choice both for clients and for barristers where previously there was none.

    The rules governing Public Access are very specific in how barristers can interact with clients and the type of work they can undertake. The simple fact that barristers cannot conduct litigation shows that the BSB is not indicating that the services barristers can offer will replace those that solicitors currently offer.

    The point about fees is well off the mark. Currently barristers have no way of recovering their fees. They cannot pursue either the solicitor or the lay client through the courts. It is therefore stipulated in the Withdrawal of Credit scheme that the solicitor is personally liable for counsel’s fees and it is their responsibility to get money up front before counsel is briefed. As I said earlier barristers will not be conducting cases as solicitors currently do, they will be instructed for advice or advocacy in individual segments. To expect clients to pay for each segment of work, albeit in advance, is pretty much pay as you go.

    I agree the Bar has a lot to think about and how best to package and offer services direct to the public but many of the points made in this article are assuming that barristers will be acting as solicitors when at the moment that just is not possible.

  6. Scott Baldwin on December 2nd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
  7. Ultimately it will come down to client choice.

  8. Employment Barristers on December 12th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Legal Futures Blog

Why your firm should support working mothers to the hilt

Georgina Hamblin

If you are going to balance the demands of work and childcare, and stay sane, you need to adapt, and with any luck your firm will adapt with you. In doing so you will both win, and your respective productivity will soar. When I had my son, I realised just how lucky I was. Not only did I have the incredible support of my, and my husband’s, family through this life-changing time, but I had a firm that offered me complete flexibility and control over my return to business life.

April 19th, 2018