The entrepreneur behind legal TV is bullish about its future, despite a troubled beginning, as Rupert White discovers

If there is a place metaphorically further from Hollywood that is not Aston in Birmingham, it is probably yet to be served by electricity. In the shadow of the HP Sauce factory, in a nondescript unit on a nondescript industrial estate in that part of England’s second city, a small team of seemingly twenty-something media people scurry around, making programmes about the law for daytime TV viewers.


Sir Richard Branson was once quoted as saying: ‘If you want to become a millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline.’ The staffers at Legal TV are no doubt hoping that the same will not be said of one Birmingham lawyer’s foray into the notoriously fickle and cash-sapping world of television.


Back in May, not long after the Gazette ran news of its launch, The Guardian included Legal TV in a feature on the new world of niche television channels. The cover of the section in which the article ran was titled ‘Unwatched TV’. The thrust of the story was that there is a host of television channels springing up on Sky targeted at niche audiences that almost no one watches. ‘Metaphorically speaking, they are small monkeys fighting in a very tiny barrel, producing some of the least-watched television going,’ was one comment.


Legal TV does not currently subscribe to the official audience rating service BARB, but estimates viewer numbers may be up to 250,000. Things may also pick up now it has been moved much further up the dial, from the wilds of channel number 885 (not far short of the X-rated channels) to channel 215, where those flicking around are far more likely to come across it. It has also been making a fuss of securing the rights to show all 800 episodes of classic seventies/eighties show ‘Crown Court’, to the point where last week it even held a reunion party for cast and crew.


Bums on seats is what television is all about, and it is a cut-throat game. It costs a lot of money, and can turn on its players without warning. Lose the audience’s attention for five minutes and you may have lost it for good – there are hundreds of channels for the audience to choose from. So perhaps it is no surprise that the birth of Legal TV has been a difficult one.


In the months following its launch, the Gazette received some complaints from discontented ex-staffers at the channel. Two former employees were interviewed, and neither had many kind words to say about their experiences, while the initial output was not thought to have worked at all well.


But after more than eight months of changes of tune, staff turnover, and a recent flurry of press releases heralding a new dawn for the legal profession, Legal TV is still going, and, say its leaders, has finally found its feet.


So how has Davy Singh-Bal, the man behind Legal TV, managed to keep his venture afloat? The answer is probably single-mindedness, and deep pockets. Legal TV has so far eaten up about £1.5 million, and is another two years from profit, so this will not be the end of the investment.


Mr Singh-Bal runs Claim Today Solicitors, a division of Davy Bal Solicitors publicised by the channel, both of which are personal injury specialist firms. He is a taking a big punt on Legal TV, and he knows it, which is why he has been actively involved throughout its inception, visiting the studio regularly, and getting involved in the station’s direction.


‘In the last couple of months, I’ve been more hands-on because it was losing direction and focus,’ he says. ‘We did have some issues with programming, which was not as exciting or as relevant as I’d like to have seen it.’ That is why there have been changes to the schedule, such as ‘Crown Court’ and new programmes like ‘Talk Legal’. Mr Singh-Bal is bullish about viewer numbers, and about what Legal TV can offer its audience.


‘It has been extremely hard work, because media is extremely difficult and demanding,’ says Mr Singh-Bal. ‘But it’s something we are committed to. So far we’ve had a huge response from the public – it has been overwhelming and our call centres are struggling to cope.’


Mr Singh-Bal claims that some days the channel is receiving ‘hundreds’ of calls, which, he says, means viewer numbers can be estimated as being around a quarter of a million on those days.


He acknowledges that there has been staff turnover, but attributes it in part to the nature of the media business, but also to resistance to change the way the industry works. ‘The TV people we worked with had a very particular way of doing things, almost a little bit like solicitors in some ways. They were very archaic and came with BBC-style baggage. They weren’t going to adapt and move quickly enough with the programming development that we wanted and they weren’t willing to encompass new ways of working. For example… they weren’t happy to respond to the interactivity needs of our viewers – and that for me is very important.’


But the station is now on the up, he insists. ‘Things are going well. We’ve got a very good team and things have settled down nicely. With any new business there is change and a lot of turmoil, particularly this type of business, which is very, very difficult.’


But no TV channel ever launched to a ready-made audience. Simon Haveland, the current channel controller at Legal TV, says: ‘It is all very well saying you are going to set up a TV station, in any sort of genre, but then to actually do it you have to be adaptable.’ Mr Haveland backs Mr Singh-Bal because, he says, it can be hard for an outsider to get to grips with the TV industry. ‘By his own admission, he will tell you he has made some mistakes, but he has also made changes because he wants to get it right.’


Some of those changes are obvious. The channel’s website now looks like a commercial offering. Publishing houses are apparently getting on board to do programmes. Mr Haveland stopped programmes going out live, meaning no-show lawyers called away by clients would not ruin the schedule. And ‘Crown Court’, bought for an undisclosed but certainly not insignificant sum, has garnered much press attention. ‘Getting “Crown Court” has definitely put us on the map,’ says Mr Haveland.


However, some changes are not so easily seen by the viewer. The Gazette has not received any more complaints from ex-staffers, and more and more lawyers are getting involved in the programmes.


But why Legal TV, and why now? One cannot help but wonder why Mr Singh-Bal has taken millions of pounds out of several obviously highly successful legal businesses and chosen to invest the money in a venture at which even seasoned TV people would baulk.


This shot in the dark, though, might just be why it could work. Mr Singh-Bal is an entrepreneur and, therefore, he says, is not like the majority of lawyers. Risk-taking is the way Mr Singh-Bal sees the world of business, it seems, and business is what law really is to him.


‘Many solicitors are very good lawyers but very poor businessmen,’ he says. ‘That’s why a lot of practices are suffering at present.’ He’s always been very entrepreneurial, he says. Legal TV is another face of that entrepreneurship. And in setting it up, he says, he has learned that it is a business in some ways like any other, with many of the same rules – look after the customer, keep your eye on the ball.


‘What I’ve learnt is it’s not as difficult as it looks, and the key is to keep an eye on what the viewer wants and to work together as a team in delivering that vision,’ he says. ‘Initially it was a real mystery and seemed like an impossible task to make a programme. But it’s not so difficult really.’


His lieutenant, Mr Haveland, is also positive about what the channel can achieve. He can see a future where, maybe, it will be just as normal to see hot-shot lawyers on TV as celebrity chefs. After all, 20 years ago the world of TV chefs was also a niche one. He wants to screen parts of family mediations, in-court footage when this is allowed, and even perhaps roving lawyers answering queries on the street.


Legal TV, reckons Mr Haveland, needs to reach out to ‘Mr and Mrs Smith at home who are getting a little bit sick of some of the afternoon stuff and want to know: “Hey, can we chop that tree down in our garden? Do we need to ask somebody?” If we can get that right, I think we would be a very effective tool and very popular’.


Whether Legal TV works out or not is perhaps in the lap of the gods as much as in the hands of the channel’s directors. But they are still holding on in Aston, in the shadow of the HP Sauce factory, trying to be the law firm in your living room. Whoever you are.