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

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