Stobart Barristers: did the legal earth just get flatter?
Legal services liberalisation has been a phoney war, but I think that ends with today’s news that logistics company Stobart Group is entering the market with the launch of Stobart Barristers. For sections of the bar, it makes the ProcureCo model look like Betamax to the green and yellow giant’s VHS.
Of course I have no idea if it will take off or not, but this is utterly different to a business that hopes to cross-sell wills from its funeral business, say. An entity like this could be a game-changer because it brings with it a way of delivering services that has radically altered the business landscape in many other business sectors.
In his book The Earth is Flat, US journalist Thomas Friedman tours the globe identifying the forces that have ‘flattened’ the business world - essentially eliminating traditional barriers to competition between companies in different countries, companies of different sizes, and employees in different places.
The ever-widening range of activities that one-time delivery businesses are now taking on comes in for a special mention. He looks at instances such as the company that noticed it didn’t need to deliver a computer sent for repair to the manufacturer, then bring it back to the consumer again after - it could get a contract with the manufacturer to repair the computer itself. Suddenly delivery costs are roughly halved.
The Stobart model seems to tick a lot of those boxes. Self-employed barristers are a highly flexible professional resource, and part of the ‘process’ has been taken out - the company notes it has been saving money by going direct to the bar for almost all its legal needs for some time.
Neither Stobart nor clients it aims to attract are bearing the cost of that slack. So, the argument goes, prices will come down. And in the public mind, barristers are hardly Third World call centre staff, pretending to know things.
Efficiencies in this model come not from salami-slicing aspects of the traditional firm setup, but from re-engineering the model entirely. That’s why this venture has the air of a game-changer.
One manager Friedman meets on his global travels remarks that making things is easy - but supply-chain logistics ‘now that’s hard’. He is right, and it would be an error for existing practices to look down their noses at this effort - again, remember barristers, not truckers, sit behind this offering.
And if you’re not sure that an old delivery company can do more than shift goods around, I can only advise you to switch on the CBeebies channel and wait for the new Postman Pat to come on. You will find out that Greendale’s changed, and that Pat’s now doing a lot more than delivering letters.
I expect many Gazette readers will pick holes in the Stobart model - and it is a commercial bet that might not pay off. (I wouldn’t seek legal advice this way.) But it has the air of a development that could do much more to change legal services than the launch of a new franchise. This is a space worth watching.
Eduardo Reyes is Gazette features editor
Follow Eduardo on Twitter
Comments
"He looks at instances such
"He looks at instances such as the company that noticed it didn’t need to deliver a computer sent for repair to the manufacturer, then bring it back to the consumer again after - it could get a contract with the manufacturer to repair the computer itself. Suddenly delivery costs are roughly halved."
Can someone please explain the point the writer is trying to make here? Seems gibberish to me...
I suspect that Stobarts hope to make their dosh by charging all these hapless barristers an annual fee to be on their 'panel' in the expectation of getting work...ho-hum, reminds me of all the panels that I've been invited to join over the years...
Poor old Counsel - they are going to have to actually keep copies of documents in their offices now (wow!) rather than send everything back to the Solicitor to keep, speak to grubby clients on the phone, write letters etc.
I suspect that their business model will also need to change with all these additional overhead costs...
Gibberish explained?
Arthur, apologies if this wasn't put clearly (I'd recommend Friedman's book though, and I rarely say that about business books).
The point is that logistics companies are adept at stripping out processes - cutting out the sort of things that other folk wouldn't think of eliminating.
And they are very good at diversifying - in the example given here, diversifying from delivering parcels that contain computers to fixing the computers close to source.
To me it appears Stobarts have re-engineered a supply chain in an interesting way - and given the record of logistics companies elsewhere, I wouldn't write it off.
I'm not sure I "like" this development. But the way they have entered the legal services market is significant.
By the way, another interesting thing to note is the areas of law they aren't seeking work for. At a glance it looks quite carefully cherry-picked.
"re-engineering the model
"re-engineering the model entirely". They act as middle men passing on work to barristers. Surely that is similar to the clerks role in direct access? Only you have to pay Stobart's cut as well, like a claims management company.
"the company notes it has been saving money by going direct to the bar for almost all its legal needs" - so why would others not do the same? Why go to stobart?
On another note the article is heavy on management speak and buzz words, but makes no mention of synergy. Surely that could have been shoe horned in?
"re-engineering the model
"re-engineering the model entirely". They act as middle men passing on work to barristers. Surely that is similar to the clerks role in direct access? Only you have to pay Stobart's cut as well, like a claims management company.
"the company notes it has been saving money by going direct to the bar for almost all its legal needs" - so why would others not do the same? Why go to stobart?
On another note the article is heavy on management speak and buzz words, but makes no mention of synergy. Surely that could have been shoe horned in?
"re-engineering the model
"re-engineering the model entirely". They act as middle men passing on work to barristers. Surely that is similar to the clerks role in direct access? Only you have to pay Stobart's cut as well, like a claims management company.
"the company notes it has been saving money by going direct to the bar for almost all its legal needs" - so why would others not do the same? Why go to stobart?
On another note the article is heavy on management speak and buzz words, but makes no mention of synergy. Surely that could have been shoe horned in?
"re-engineering the model
Thanks for you comment Simon.
I think the "return" key on your keyboard may be stuck?
No actual response to his
No actual response to his point though
Stobart
Eduardo,
As Gazette features editor will you asking Stobart about the issues which have been raised under the “Stobart offers pay-as-you go barristers – but no plans to be ABS” article?
Alan
Returning to this subject
Yes Alan, these comment threads raise some interesting points to go back with.
Will certainly be returning with more details. best wishes, Eduardo
Stobart
Eduardo
You were going to re-visit the Stobart story. I see that there has recently been a piece in legalfutures but this does not deal with the various points which had been raised on this site (see http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/hundreds-clients-already-seeking-comfort-eddie-stobart-brand)
Alan
Returning to this subject
Many thanks.
It would be really interesting to have Stobart's comments.
Alan
Fees
Perhaps you can also ask them what their fees are and what they propose to do in the event that counsel says that it would be in the interests of the client (or of justice) for the client to instruct a solicitor. I would have thought that, in almost all cases (other than those where the client is a sophisticated entity accustomed to delaing with lawyers, in which case it will not be using Stobart's services in the first place) it will be in the interests of the client/justice for the client to instruct a solicitor.
stobart
Stobart has done a really good job of changing his business module for his drivers, consequently a number of misclassification of contract status cases also a big representation from Unite Trade union with regards to his operating procedures of the exploitation of the sub contract drivers that now operate his business module, it will be interesting to see how he manages to exploit the legal system with the barristers and counsel themselves. the next thing you will see Stobart running for Prime Minister.
short memories
thankfully Courts are public places, Mr Howarth - Head of Legal Services at Stobart- is a legally unqualified man and he has previously been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. being a middle man for Counsel requires nothing but a telephone and a notepad. Skill or Opportunism ?
Mr Howarth
I have been concerned by a post submitted by “nock freoman” on Fri, 25/05/2012 at 15:13.
There is a reported case (Howarth v Gwent Constabulary & Anor [2011] EWHC 2836 (QB)) concerning a Trevor Howarth. I do not know whether it is or isn’t the same Mr Howarth that “nock freoman” is referring to but the Claimant in those proceedings sought damages for alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. That Trevor Howarth had, indeed, been charged with perverting the course of justice, an offence in respect of which he had been acquitted. Although his civil action was unsuccessful, at the outset of the judgment, Mr Justice Eady said:
“It is right to record that Mr Howarth was, and following his trial remains, a man of good character”.
It would be unfortunate if a proper debate concerning the Stobart model became personal in nature.
Model
It's hardly a "model". If a barrister accepts DPA work, you can use him. That's the point of DPA. You don't need a middleman - you just use this Bar Council page to search for a suitable barrister:
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/instructing-a-barrister/public-access/
By using Stobart, you're restricting your choice of counsel to those who are on Stobart's panel, as well as (presumably) paying some sort of fee to Stobart (which you would have avoided had you used gone to the barrister direct). I cannot find anything on the Stobart website about what their fees are, though there is a reference to a "fixed fee".
I would have thought that people would only use Stobart if they didn't feel confident about using the DPA process (or the Bar Council site referred to above) without the involvement of a middleman: in other words, if they needed a solicitor to help them understand and manage the process. In those circumstances, counsel might well be under a duty to advise the client to instruct a solicitor - see paras 57 to 61 of this:
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/119597/public_access_guidance_for_barristers_-_mar_2010_-_as_at_25_oct_2011__1_.pdf
Note also paras 81 to 91 on the topic of intermediaries.
So, to whom are Stobart going to refer cases to when counsel says a solicitor needs to be instructed? Do they have a panel of solicitors for that purpose? Who's on it and on what terms?
Perhaps, before publishing "blogs" like this in the future, the Gazette will do a bit more research and thinking on the topic in question.
Stobart "model"
There isn't much assistance on the Stobart Barristers' website, but if you look at the news section of the Stobart Group website, you will see they say that they have a "model", the features of which are seemingly:
• link(s) members of the public and businesses direct to a barrister without needing to employ a solicitor
• offers access to a UK-wide network of specialist barristers for any area of law
• uses a pricing model under which its clients agree and pay a fixed-fee through a ‘pay-as-you-go’ model during the litigation process
• once its clients have received a barrister’s opinion, which the service would typically look to deliver in under seven days, its sister company Stobart Barrister Support Services can provide the necessary paralegal support to help a barrister prepare their case instead of a solicitor
• provides one of the few ways for members of the public to pay for a barrister’s service as despite the introduction of DPA legislation barristers are still not allowed to accept fees direct from members of the public
• cuts out waste and opens up access to a national panel of barristers that are selected for their ability to meet our clients’ needs
It's all somewhat vague and I don't know what they are getting at with DPA Barristers not being allowed to accept fees direct.
As to an indication of what the fees will be, on another (non Stobart) site it is said that the fixed fees will be "besboke". The Gazette has promised to return to this story, when it will be interesting to have more information generally and comment on the technical points mentioned on the other thread.
I suspect that Stobart and
I suspect that Stobart and others see the legal world as one where there are a lot of cheap providers competing on price, and the real money is to be made by selling the service on - just as a retailer can beat Chinese factories down on cost, and big mark ups can be achieved. The CMCs are evidence that the intermediaries can make more than the producers.
In the future, the real skill will be convincing someone to pay a lot more for basic legal services, provided cheaply somewhere else. The only advantage to those in the profession who don't end up supervising 50 paralegals in a warehouse, it that all this will have the effect of forcing prices up. Large operations cannot afford to compete on price with sole practitioners working from home and doing their own typing.
surely this business model...
...only works if there is somebody to pick up the phone or answer the e-mails. As it stands I've tried to call on a dozen occasions and the telephone number forwards the call to a voicemail service immediately with no recognition that you're speaking to Stobart Barristers. My e-mails have gone unaswered.
At least if I call or e-mail my local chambers in Birmingham I know that someone will pick up the telephone or reply to my request/enquiry.
This business model may only work if there is some customer service. So far there isn't.
In any event, who really would want to instruct a barrister who is tendering for work? What does that tell you about the quality of the work that will be done for you? Would you really want to kick of a piece of litigation (as a litigant in person without insurance) and then be told that actually, you're going to lose and that you're responsible for the other parties costs?
It may work for some businesses for specialist and niche areas of law, but for Joe Public, I can't see that it's going take off.
Stobart model
I don't think that Stobart would be of interest to businesses operating in specialist or niche areas. They are likely to be quite sophisticated purchasers of legal services who will know which Counsel works in their field or will be able to find it out quite easily. Any support services following receipt of advice from Counsel will also be sourced from suppliers (eg tax specialists, construction specialists etc) familiar with the environment in which those businesses operate.
A couple of weeks ago Eduardo Reyes promised to return to this story with more details from Stobart. Any news?