header-logo header-logo

30 September 2010
Issue: 7435 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cab-rank rule future

Barristers to Assess Future of Cab-Rank RuleThe Bar Standards Board (BSB) is considering whether to reform the cab-rank rule, under which barristers must accept any brief in a field in which they are competent.

Barristers to Assess Future of Cab-Rank RuleThe Bar Standards Board (BSB) is considering whether to reform the cab-rank rule, under which barristers must accept any brief in a field in which they are competent. The discussions, centred around the potential impact on the profession of the new business structures permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007, can be found in the BSB consultation paper, ‘Regulating Entities’, which was launched this week.

Barristers are asked for their views on whether the rule should apply to advocates in the new business structure as well as self-employed barristers, and whether it should apply to all advocates in that entity or only the barristers. The paper considers the scope of the rule and whether it should be limited, and asks whether there is a risk it can be abused.The broad-ranging paper also asks whether restrictions on barristers providing litigation services and holding client money should be lifted.

In August, a YouGov survey found that 35% of barristers would be ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to join a new business structure within the next five years if the BSB was to regulate them.

The possible new structures are: Barrister Only Entities (BOEs), businesses with barrister owners and managers alone; Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs), businesses with lawyer owners and managers alone; and Alternative Business Structures (ABSs), businesses with both lawyer and non-lawyer owners and managers.BSB chair, Baroness Ruth Deech said there could be “substantial benefits to the public and increased access to justice if we update our regulatory arrangements to reflect the Act”.

Responses are due by 23 December 2010. The consultation is the third in a series to address the implications of the Act. Previous consultations were ‘Legal Services Act 2007–Regulation Implications’, published in January 2008, and ‘Legal Services Act 2007–Legal Disciplinary Practices and Partnerships of Barristers’, published in December 2008.
 

Issue: 7435 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll