header-logo header-logo

17 September 2015
Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The merits of unbundling?

Law firms should embrace unbundling and do more to market it to clients, according to the Legal Services Board (LSB).

The LSB and Legal Services Consumer Panel, its consumer wing, published new Ipsos Mori research with consumers, lawyers and judges this week.

Unbundling is where legal services are broken down into separate parts, which are then shared between the lawyer and the client. For example, a client could opt to save money by preparing their own evidence and instructing a barrister for representation.

The research, Qualitative research exploring experiences and perceptions of unbundled legal services, found that clients’ primary reasons for choosing unbundling were reduced cost and greater control.

Unbundling is increasingly offered by solicitors. However, whether or not unbundling was an option tended to be identified during the initial client interview rather than being actively marketed. The research highlighted some concerns, for example, the client receiving advice based on limited information or there being a lack of clarity about the scope of work involved.

Members of the judiciary also highlighted these potential difficulties but said that, if full representation could not be obtained, some legal assistance ought to be beneficial.

Legal Services Consumer Panel Chair, Elisabeth Davies, says: “We've known that the unbundling of legal services has been going on for some time.

“This research supports the view that unbundling can be used to broaden access to justice, and it's reassuring to see this method of service provision working hand in hand with DIY law. It's a natural response to the cuts in legal aid funding and wider financial struggles, and is indicative of the profession adapting to meet the needs of today's consumers and helping to empower them.”

She adds: “It is crucial that the more vulnerable consumers, including those who lack the confidence or knowledge to unbundle, are taken into account in other ways. Unbundling is an important part of a wider solution.”

Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll