Report comment

There should be sanctions against counsel and their chambers for what is tantamount to 'flipping' a brief. Such conduct is against current practice in Victoria Australia), where, for instance, counsel accepts a brief for a matter that will more likely go to trial in a senior court, and returning a brief for which there is, for example, a prospect of a guilty plea in a lower court, so that they can earn a higher fee. In said jurisdiction, instructing solicitors would be disinclined to instruct offending counsel or their chambers where such practice occurs. In England and Wales, double-booking should be a definite 'no-no'. Although counsel are self-employed and their income depends on being instructed, the BSB does issue a health warning about a career at the Bar (in which case, in my submission, the profession should be salaried and the two branches merged; though this would detract from the main point herein, namely, flipping briefs). Indeed, as for etymology, perhaps it would be more appropriate to call the practice 'flipping' rather than double-booking. It should not only be regarded as unethical, but a matter of professional misconduct and discipline. Instructing solicitors should in the meantime be wise to this and decide not to instruct said counsel again. It is also a massive inconvenience to clients and witnesses, many of whom are distressed, may be intimidated by the 'majesty' of the law and the courts, and would have incurred great expense (actually or relatively) in attending court. This practice must be stopped, and Judge should impose a Wasted Costs Order against counsel for which he/she would be personally liable to pay.