header-logo header-logo

Direct access benefit in doubt

04 December 2008
Issue: 7348 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Advocacy skills could diminish if Bar enmeshed in litigation administration

Clients who opt to access their barrister directly may not save money or enjoy a better provision of service, despite recent claims to the contrary.

In a report published last week, the Westminster School of Law claimed that consumers could benefit by engaging the services of a barrister directly. The report, Straight there, No Detours: Direct Access to Barristers, claimed that almost 90% of existing users found
that instructing a barrister directly provided better value for money than going through a solicitor.

However, David Greene, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association and partner at Edwin Coe LLP, says changes to the way clients access legal services make little difference to consumers, particularly in civil litigation.

“The Bar is not geared up for direct access save in very limited circumstances because it doesn’t have the ability to deal with the administration of a piece of litigation, which is all part of the process,” he says.

Greene continues: “Solicitors are used to dealing with clients, questions they have about the process and the day to day relationship they
have with clients, areas that the Bar is not up to speed with. The Bar works in a particular way that doesn’t involve direct access by clients seeking information, often on a fairly constant basis.”

“We go to the Bar because of their speciality and because of their advocacy skills. These are likely to become more dissolved if they start having to deal with administration and all of the other aspects of it. The Bar off ers the best advocacy in the world. Our view would be, ‘stick to what you’re good at’,” he adds.

Greene also refutes suggestions that direct access programmes represent better value for money for clients.

“You are dealing with a barrister direct in those circumstances and although it may be cheaper, you are also losing the fact that someone has to deal with the administration of a piece of litigation,” he says. “It is not as efficient and it doesn’t give you value for money.”

Issue: 7348 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll