header-logo header-logo

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

Direct access benefit in doubt

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

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

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