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

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll