Bar aiming to bypass ‘superfluous’ solicitors

What a highly annoying report.
Here's another idea; If we really want to modernise the legal industry and improve access to justice, then rather than upholding and maintaining this out of date and highly insulting discrimination between Barristers and Solicitors, lets abolish both branches. Get rid of Barristers; get rid of Solicitors; get rid of the BPTC; get rid of the LPC; get rid of the training contract; get rid of Pupillage. All of these things merely seek to restrict access to the profession and ultimately access to justice for the public.
Instead lets have a modern and open industry populated by highly trained and skilled 'Lawyers' without delineation with regards to who can and who cannot conduct a case from start to finish; without discrimination on grounds of social strata, university of choice, sex, religion or anything else; where practitioners don't need to stand in court wearing wigs, cloaks, buckled shoes etc but can choose whether or not to do so, and not just at the level of supreme court; and where practitioners can all if they choose to do so take an entire case from first client contact all the way to court and completion.
Lets have a profession where lawyers can choose to be employed, or to be self employed without restriction as to whether they can do so or not. Lets have a profession that does not elevate that area of the country within the M25 above the rest of the country in terms of practice and importance as seems to be another prevalent attitude.

Let us be honest. In some practice areas the solicitor is little more than a party planner between client and barrister so the (badly worded) point may have some validity.

I review files from "specialist" solicitors who are beholdent to the views of counsel and add little other than leg work. Equally there are some of us who use Counsel sparingly and those we bring in work with us not over us.

That said there are plenty at the Bar who will struggle when they have to field phone calls from clients all day and have to explain why they aren't taking cases on. Cannot imagine clerks enjoying chasing experts for reports or being hounded by rejected clients who won't take no for an answer.

I would also assume that indemnity insurance will go up as well without us taking the first hit.

The future in this market place is uncertain. Perhaps the old split is pointless now and specialist solicitors and counsel will be partners in same firms to best use their respective skills. The title Attorney seems apt. The closed shop is opening up so why stick with out moded distinctions?

Maybe the US model of law firms has some attraction. Barristers share the fees of the bulk of the work and we don't have to send money out in days when the fees are reducing.

Garrow had Southouse, Rumpole had 'Bonny Bernard' - the best Barristers work in partnership with their Solicitor. Our firm, a provincial small firm, represented a client at the Court of Appeal and instructed a barrister who was outstanding. We won. The other side instructed Counsel directly from a posh London set, and failed miserably. He looked a lonely figure sat behind his counsel without the support of a solicitor. So often counsel appear aloof and have not journeyed with the client.

Just wondering how come then barrister would be able to do quality work, when he would have to have an initial attendance with a client, then prepare a long client care letter, then go through with the evidence gathering process, writing letters to home office or CPS for immigration and criminal matters (most busy legally funded areas) and yet to appear before the court after preparing the grounds of appeal, witness statements, skeleton argument.

The more clients he would have the more risky he would be and perhaps his indemnity insurance will also go up.

At the moment barristers just take a brief from solicitors, compiled on prepared court bundle they then do research on area of law and get ready to go to the court but just consider, if they have to do the whole bunch of exercises then unfortunately the barristers would have the access to business but client may not have access to justice.

Quality would then be undermined practically.

I do an increasing amount of Public Access work. However, I find that I refer at least half the potential clients to solicitors, because the litigation demands a lawyer in an office to guide the litigation five days a week or an expert needs instructing or the client qualifies for legal aid. These referrals can help counsel build up relationships with solicitors.

What I do find exasperating is to represent a client on a road traffic matter who has paid an instructing solicitor thousands of pounds; yet it is counsel who reads the Advance Information, takes instructions, advises on plea and fills out the case management form as necessary, whilst all the solicitor has done is listen to the client's story and booked counsel (for often less than a three-figure sum in London!).
Some road traffic solicitors leave a lot more to be desired: when I asked one firm why they disclosed all the defence witness statements to the CPS I was told they 'always' did this and it resulted in 85% of charges being dropped. Much to the strategic disadvantage of the remaining defendants in my view!
Once word gets around about these practices I believe there is sure to be an increase in Public Access instructions.

I think fears over increased insurance premiums for Public Access work are exaggerated. The Bar Mutual Insurance Fund is controlled by its members and does an excellent job for far lower premiums than most solicitors pay to their professional insurers. Just ask counsel for a ball park figure on their professional insurance - you may be in for a surprise! Perhaps the Law Society should look into setting up an insurer along the lines of the BMIF.

It comes as no great surprise that the Bar should launch an attack on solicitors purely because
of the ability of solicitors to represent clients in court which they were most definitely not allowed to do ten years ago because I remember the status Quo! After all each branch of the profession/s has to support , and represent, it's membership in terms of maximising fee income available to it's membership. A notion that Central Government don't take account of when opening up markets by new regulation and statute that tends to interfere with the professions in a manner that every single one of us hates by nature alone!

The question of what is a solicitor is of course interesting:-

Definition 1) A person, or persons, who engage in legal paper work administration.

Definition 2) The Central Government defines a solicitor as only people registered with the SRA who undertake work categorised as "reserved work" under Central Government regulations.

Definition 3) The ordinary person on the street classifies a solicitor as any person who does, or would , represent their community ( or individually) in respect of legal problems that they, or the community, may encounter or have encountered.

Definition 4) The origins of the Law Society from the days , several centruies ago, before Law Society Hall was built define a solicitor as a person engaged in legal administration for land or/and property and also advocates who were allowed to do the other forms of work not undertaken by legal administrators of estate, property, and land.

What does this say?

The law is an ass, in reality, and practices do what ever they are experienced and qualified to do, subject to a test for reasonableness as to the ability to do it! When I say "qualified to do" obviously Bar council members can diversify and do conveyancing work if they really really want to by further training. Also Law Society members can diversify and do client advocacy work ,in court , if they really really want to!

What exactly appears to be the problem?????

Andrew Siddle

I agree with Andrew Benington that our divided profession achieves high quality justice for a very low price and I also want the division kept. Have those who favour a ‘fusion’ of the profession considered how effective the administration of justice is in countries where the two roles are merged? In certain jurisdictions where the two roles are not ‘split’ the lawyers are out there in court all day and when they come back to the office there is very little time to see existing let alone new clients and also deal with the administration in a solicitor’s office and prepare effectively for court the following day. Justice in jurisdictions like that is extremely slow and cases are forever adjourned because lawyers are often not ready to proceed. There is nothing like client care in some of these systems! In a society like UK where new laws are passed and ‘enforced effectively’ most of the time I do not think a fusion of the roles will be a good idea at all. The good file management / client care that most solicitors have become accustomed to, thanks to the Law Society, will all be abandoned and we will see lots of negligence cases against lawyers. For UK to merge the two professions, will be taking several steps backward instead of forward. Perhaps solicitors and barristers should be partners in same firms to best use their respective skills.

I come from a commonwealth jurisdiction where the legal profession is fused. We're all advocates & solicitors and have the joy of being in direct contact with the client and rights of audience in the courts.

At the same time, we're given the flexibility to be engaged as an advocate & solicitor or as a counsel or as just a solicitor. I think it is high time the UK legal profession abolish the demarcation between the two. Coming from a jurisdiction where there is no demarcation, my experience tells me it is achievable in the UK and you will only give better access of justice to the public without unnecessarily having the public double their costs of engaging a solicitor and thereafter a barrister.

The Bar Council's existing Public Access barrister scheme provides members of the public with an opportunity to obtain high quality advice and representation, usually at much lower hourly rates than solicitors charge and avoids duplication of cost and leg work with the solicitor. However a member of the public using the existing scheme needs to be an "intelligent customer" and the arrangement will not suit all members of the public.

In principle the extenison of the scheme seems like a good idea but maybe the real answer lies in removing the distinctions between barrister and solicitor as well as cutting the "gin palace" overheads charged by so many solicitors.

Ha, now this I would love to see.

The amount of barristers I have instructed who have encouraged me to 'swap sides' as the lifestyle is so much easier. A clerk and one case fully prepared for them, by us, the lowly solicitor.

I have heard on many occassions from barristers how they simply could not bear to put up with all the annoying whining we have to listen to (I work in family)

I relish the day a barrister has to prep a case, deal with the client, deal with numerous other instructions (all at once) answer emails, speak to clients on the phone and, of courdse, the ones that just turn up, etc etc. I give the majority of them 5 minutes, before they hand it all back over.

This really is a pointless argument - it is simply not cost effective or time efficient to join the two roles. Would you expect a surgeon to also act as a GP and a consultant? Would you expect a chef to also serve you your food? The list goes on - a barrister is used to provide an expert view on an area of law or to attend Court purely on a needs basis by a Solicitor.