Report comment

So the Chambers model is strong yet there's a dearth of junior practitioners and the Bar is struggling to retain talent. I'm not sure those arguments really work together.

In any event, my opinion (as if anyone cares about my opinion) is that fusion is right for the client. There is no reason you cannot fuse the profession and still have specialist advocates, even advocates banding together to work in firms and sell their specialist advocacy skills to lawyers working in litigation firms. There is also nothing to stop firms creating in-house chambers style units. So, what's the advantage to the client? For me the advantage comes in that firms operating as a unit can cut their overall costs meaning the same service can be provided more cheaply and at an agreed price for the work where it is all done in house. In addition, with just one profession there is no need for multiple regulators and umbrella regulators and super regulators etc etc meaning regulation can be simplified and dealt with by one organisation.

Barristers often make out that fusion is terrible for the client because it means they do not have a choice in their advocate. This is untrue and lacks an insight into how clients choose advocates. Let's say I want a particular advocate, what is to stop me going to his firm to instruct him? The reality for most clients though is that they have absolutely no idea who to instruct and so will rely entirely on their solicitor for advice. Who do solicitors instruct now? For the most part they instruct advocates they know - there's a good reason Chambers put on drinkie dos and free wine-fuelled training sessions for solicitors.

In my experience, as a dual qualified barrister and solicitor who practices as a solicitor clients are rarely impressed by the barrister brand. In fact, I can guarantee that the one thing that will generate a complaint is if I send a barrister to court rather than attend personally to represent the client.

As a client of solicitors I have often wondered why I need to pay a barrister. For example, I had a commercial law problem, which is something I have no experience or training in. I instructed a partner at a large firm who had 36 years PQE at the time and charged £350+VAT p/h. He instructed a 2 year call barrister to advise us both on the law at a further cost to me of £1,000 for an hour of her time. I simply have no idea to this day why there needs to be duplication of this sort of work.