Stobart offers pay-as-you-go barristers - but no plans to be ABS

"A pay-as-you-go model during the litigation process, giving the client control of the process and enabling them [sic] to end it after each stage." Is that not the "model" which solicitors have been operating for hundreds of years? Yes, you can end it at any time - and you will pick up the costs for discontinuing.

Giuven that DPA already exists (and is designed specifically to do away with the middleman), what exactly is it that Stobart is providing in this model? An introduction to a barrister on its panel and some help with the preparation of bundles? Who is going to check silly little things like whether the client might have some insurance cover to deal with legal costs?

Presumably the Bar will have to rename the taxi rank rule. Will the next truck in line please leave chambers to pick up their client from Court Number 1?

How nice that Howard and his coterie are trying to resolve the problem of excess potential trainees- employ them as "Para- legals" and get them to stack lorry loads of briefs!

Do they not understand that clients, sorry customers, want to instruct highly trained and qualified lawyers, not 18 year old "para-legals" and that barristers simply are not trained or able to deal with clients on a regular face to face basis?

Having dealt with Stobarts in the past, when there lamentable inhouse legal skills lead to cases dragging on unnecessarily, I see very little threat from this latest gimmick.

In one swoop, Stobarts have just set up the definitely the biggest chambers and probably the biggest law firm in the country, that provides direct public access to lawyers more cheaply than ever before.

How long will it be before membership of this or that chambers becomes irrelevant to the general run of common law work?

Once they get going, others will respond with similar models and competitive rates.

The learned Prof. Susskind was right. Lots of lawyers fighting over lower work volumes = 50% drop in cost of lawyers. I only disagree with his timeframe. I think this is happening now.

Is there not the slight (minor) problem that this is a criminal offence? Of course nobody (not least our beloved law society) will do anything about it.

But as the press release / sorry article says, this venture "spurns the structure introduced by the Legal Services Act". It goes on, saying of the bar, that "they don’t have the infrastructure or ability to provide the preparatory and litigation work ... so we provide that."

Now who's going to be the first to stand up and read what section 12(1)(b) Legal Services Act 2007 says.

Being a mere solicitor, with x years of training in the law, and a few more years experience, I probably don't know much about Acts of Parliament, but I can't recall being allowed to circumvent them simply because it is profitable to do so.

Of course they will say that they are merely giving advice on the steps necessary to conduct litigation (although the press release above says that they do it). But my view is that this is not permitted under the Act, given that to allow them to do that render pointless section 12(1)(b) and the associated mechanism of obtaining approval to conduct a reserved legal activity.

I was interested to read the DomcCoop and Gary Hodkinson posts.

A cursory look at the Companies House website indicates that within the Stobart group, there is not only Stobart Barristers Ltd and Stobart Barrister Support Services Ltd but also Stobart Law Ltd and Stobart Claims Management Ltd.

I suspect that the Stobart directors will have considered very carefully the surrounding legal framework, no doubt taking direct advice from one of the public access QCs on their own panel.

As I understand the model, in court proceedings, one Stobart company will provide an introduction to a barrister who will advise and be the advocate in court but the individual will conduct the proceedings himself as a litigant in person drawing on the assistance of another Stobart company to assist in the preparation of witness statements, trial bundles etc. No doubt the claims management company will intervene as necessary.

The structure itself is reasonably complex but I suspect that any litigant who wishes to proceed in this way will have to be prepared to do a great deal of work him or herself. That same person with intelligence and time is likely to be able to get all the necessary advice and guidance from the directories and manuals available at good libraries, booksellers and over the internet, perhaps also with help from a law graduate who has completed the LPC but can’t get a training contract!

There aren't many cases on what comstitites "conduct of litigation", amd those that do are under the Courts And Legal Services Act 1991 / Solicitors Act 1974.

I am aware of the arguments because I obtained advice for a debt collection agency client of mine who wanted to do the very thing Stobart is offering. Advice in a nutshell was you could argue that client is a litigant in person, using documents you have procured, but the dividing line between advising a client on, say, what words to put on an N244, and being seen to have drafted that N244 through the agency of the client is a grey and thin dividing line.

Second, I have one at the moment. We have sued two people for circa £½million. They use "legal consultants" who instruct a direct access barrister. Said consultant has so far: 1. completed and filed acknowledgments of service; 2. given his address as the address for service; and 3. made an application for extension of time for service of defence.

I have cross-applied, but the useless Salford Business Centre returned the application un-issued after 14 days saying that the "evidence in Part C" (the small box for a witness statement on the second page of the application notice) needs completing - even though the evidence is a separate, attached witness statement - but that's another story.

Legal Consultant says he doesn't conduct litigation. He says he gives legal advice to the client on the need to apply for an extension of time, and legal advice on what form to use and how to fill it in. Legal advice is not a reserved activity. Client then as litigant in person accepts that advice, and instructs legal consultant to complete the form as a typist. typing is obviously not a reserved activity either. client approves and signs form, and consultant sends it.

In my view Parliament passed a law restricting who may conduct litigation, and setting out what proces a non-lawyer has to follow to get that right. In such a case, a contrived and artificial structure to circumvent the Act by simply labelling a client "litigant in person" - when the client is I'm reality legally represented - ought not to be permitted.

Dom - a couple of points (not related to each other):

1. On the privilege question, see Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v MacKay [2012] EWHC 649 (TCC). It's on bailii.

2. Have a look at the website of Family Law Clinic.

In my view, going on the record for a client (as the consultant has done in your Salford case) clearly amounts to conducting litigation. But, in the light of Walter Lilly, any advice which he is giving in relation to the litigation is arguable privileged.

DomCoop at 12.15 today raised the question of conflict of interest and Bar Council guidance.

It appears that Rule 603 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, “provides that, amongst other things, a barrister must not accept instructions to act if to do so would cause him to be professionally embarrassed and that includes being embarrassed by a conflict or the risk of a conflict between the interests of the barrister and some other person or where there is a high risk of confidential information being used other than for the benefit of that client”.

It seems to me that there has to be high risk of communications between the client and the Stobart support company not being privileged given the Court of Appeal decision in the Prudential case and, indeed, the first instance decision in the Walter Lilly case, which has also been mentioned..

Another issue is whether or not an individual who is successful in an action would be able to recover the costs paid to the Stobart support company, as distinct from the amount paid to Counsel. Agassi v HM Inspector of Taxes [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 seems to be authority that general assistance in litigation is not recoverable unless paid to a solicitor.

Their website says that the reason to go them rather than directly to chambers is "Because we are passing high volumes of business to our barrister panel, we can demand better rates and faster service on your behalf".
I think stobart barristers should be forced to abandon the wig and wear Stobart truckers green and red baseball caps. At least being in the pockets of such a down to earth, no nonsense company must prick their pomposity!

I see a lot of theories and a lot of analysis being poured into how the business model would work but in my opinion this business model already works and it's called - chambers.

The ingredients are as follows: barristers, some paralegals and some admin and sales clerks.

Would Stobart Barristers succeed in changing the market? Depends on the rates that they are practicing but I think not since there are too many hands involved in dealing with the files and two many profit margins involved.

Would Stobart Barristers succeed as a business? It is likely in effect all they did is taken their existing panel and opened it to a wider variety of cases. Therefore they will have a running caseload of Stobart cases and another newly developed stream of cases coming through Stobart Barristers.

Time will tell. The pressure to change is there and it appears to be consistent but then again so is the smoke coming from burning hay the question is will the pressure be affirmed or will the wind of time blow it away?