header-logo header-logo

Barristers approved to form LDPs

26 November 2009
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Solicitors & barristers allowed to form businesses, after extensive consulation

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has given its approval for barristers to supply legal services through legal disciplinary practices (LDPs).

The decision which paves the way for barristers to set up in business with solicitors, and follows extensive work by a BSB working group, including three consultations on the possible impact of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Nicholas Green QC, the chairman-elect of the Bar Council, says: “The BSB’s decision represent an historic moment for the Bar.”

The BSB emphasised, in a statement released last week, that it did not want to lose the “unique attributes” of the Bar, including the cab-rank rule, independence of thought and collegiality through membership of the profession and the Inns of Court.

The board adopted a number of recommendations regarding LDPs:
l barristers should be permitted to become managers of LDPs which include up to 25% non-lawyer managers;
l barristers should be permitted to practise as both managers and as independent practitioners, and detailed guidance will be developed relating to this;
l barristers should be discouraged from becoming shareholders in LDPs due to possible conflict of interest issues, until further guidance is issued;
l barristers should be permitted to form barrister-only partnerships (BoPs) pending the creation of an appropriate regulator for such entities;
l barristers should be permitted in principle to practise through other barrister-only companies and limited liability partnerships; and
l the cab-rank rule will apply to barrister-only partnerships, and the BSB considers that all advocates should be subject to the cab-rank rule and will be raising this with other regulators.

The recommendations will take effect once they have been approved by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Board.

Baroness Deech, chairman of the BSB, says: “[This] will send a shot of adrenaline through the profession.

“Our decisions on LDPs reflect the need to develop and enhance the supply of legal services so as to best serve clients of the Bar and guarantee access to justice.

"In relation to shareholding in LDPs, we discourage this until we are confident that proper clarification and guidance is in place about conflicts. In relation to dual practice, we hope to provide flexibility in the provision of barristers’ services to the benefit of both practitioners  and consumers."
 

Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll