Barrister's chambers or sole practice?

johnnyskeleton

The competition authority have recommended that barristers be allowed form chambers and partnerships while the bar council advocate strongly for the retention of the rule that barristers must operate as sole practitioners. While there is much to say on both sides, it has arisen in another thread and I was wondering if anyone had any strong views on the issue?

I tend to lean towards the sole practitioner model because:

1) The nature of the barrister profession is that they are independent and if on occasion they form the view that there is a conflict of interest or if their advice does not agree with the solicitor’s advice, they should not be constrained by considerations of what other members of the chambers think.

2) They should also not be prevented from taking on cases which might be considered to lower the standing of chambers. Obviously big commercial clients do not want to rub shoulders with paramilitaries and paedophiles when they attend at a barrister’s chambers.

3) The ubiquity of chambers in England and Wales restricts entry into the profession. While there is no reason to believe that chambers in Ireland would be similar to chambers in E&W, there is a high likelihood that the introduction of chambers would decrease the numbers entering the profession as 3-5 barristers who could take a devil may take only 1 between them.

4) When two barristers from the same chambers are against each other in a case, they might not put their respective client’s case as thoroughly as possible for fear of creating tension or disharmony in chambers. By the same token, barristers in chambers might make cosy deals with each other or at least seem to be doing so, to the detriment of the client. Solicitor’s firms cannot represent both sides in a contentious matter, no matter how many Chinese walls there are, and I think it is a bit unrealistic to suggest that members of chambers are somehow more independent than solicitors in the same firm. There is also the increased risk of papers being mixed up.

5) In any case, the law library is like a chambers on a grand scale, and can achieve a much greater saving than smaller chambers can.

6) It is entirely possible that a number of barristers in a particular area could corner the market (for example, criminal, employment law, constitutional law) and align themselves to a particular firm of solicitors. I wouldn’t like to think that all the top criminal barristers would be in a chambers which only takes on prosecution work, all the top employment barristers taking on employers only, or the top constitutional barristers only be briefed by the Attorney General’s office. In each case there is a possibility of the underdog being denied his choice of representation.

7) Finally, barristers are the freelancers of the legal profession and stand or fall on their own merits. They should not be propped up by other members of chambers, nor should a client find that in requesting a particular barrister they are given a different member of chambers because the solicitor/clerk/head of chambers decides so. “Mr. Rumpole always represents the Timmsons” etc.

Any takers?

Tom Young

I take and I agree with you.

Its all about ability.

Are the Criminal courts not moving away from the Inns to Heuston Stn.?

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote:

Are the Criminal courts not moving away from the Inns to Heuston Stn.?

They're moving to parkgate street/phoenix park. It's supposed to be by 2010, so I'd say by 2015.

cycleoin

To be fair - informal chambers are operating here already. Take a stroll down to the offices off arran quay, beside phoenix house. YOu will notice that three or four juniors are sharing suites and pooling resources to bring in a secretary between them. Also, you can be damn sure that if one guy isn't able to take a case for whatever reason he'll be recommending one of his colleagues.

What about the proposition that associations could be formed with a maximum limit to the members, say 5 barristers per association? And what do ye think about the no advertising rules??

The ban on advertsing feeds the "you've got to have contacts" culture between barristers and solicitors. If the ban on advertising was lifted and small chambers allowed form, surely it would make it easier for barristers to market their services?

Our man in Havana

Maybe allow barristers to take instructions from clients directly? But that would put the solicitors out of business?

johnnyskeleton

cycleoin wrote:

To be fair - informal chambers are operating here already. Take a stroll down to the offices off arran quay, beside phoenix house. YOu will notice that three or four juniors are sharing suites and pooling resources to bring in a secretary between them. Also, you can be damn sure that if one guy isn't able to take a case for whatever reason he'll be recommending one of his colleagues.

I would imagine that this is even worse for more junior and struggling members of the bar, in that there is a de facto chambers system, but they have no real way of entering it (unless they are seriously connected). You are also probably right that barristers in these offices try to keep it within the office, which is, I would say, a reason not to have a chambers system.

cycleoin wrote:

What about the proposition that associations could be formed with a maximum limit to the members, say 5 barristers per association?

Is that workable? Could it actually be enforced?

cycleoin wrote:

And what do ye think about the no advertising rules??

The ban on advertsing feeds the "you've got to have contacts" culture between barristers and solicitors. If the ban on advertising was lifted and small chambers allowed form, surely it would make it easier for barristers to market their services?

I suppose the two big problems here are that: 1) in an area such as advocacy services, I'm not sure that advertising (e.g. yellow pages, etc) is of much use and 2) if it is, you could be advertised out of practice by the big boys.

I suppose how it would work out is that it wouldn't help the younger members of the profession in the short term but it would only increase their operating costs, it wouldn't help the top professionals either because their reputations speak for themselves. It would most likely help people who want to specialise in a particular area to become known in that area, but I'm not sure that it would create more of an even playing field for people who are struggling, or for those offering a cheaper, more efficient service.

If you think about solicitors, to what extent does advertising help them? It helps assert the ubiquity of the largest firms, and it helps firms with "convey your house for €500" or no-win-no-fee type deals, but I wonder how much it helps people choose their solicitor. When it comes to barristers then, Solicitors would be much more aware of the legal profession and less likely to choose a barrister based on an ad.

So I don't think advertising would change matters much, but then again who is to say?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote:

Maybe allow barristers to take instructions from clients directly? But that would put the solicitors out of business?

Or create a merged profession (another big point of contention)?

Tom Young

I think that John Fingleton, the former head of the Competition Authority was right to analyse the economics of the legal profession. I have some of respect for his work, particularly Taxi Regulation (de-regulation).

With regard to the legal profession, I think the Haran report was fairly clear on the benefits of maintaining the status quo between professions.

I don't like the thought of direct access or chambers. It will lead to conflicts between barristers duty to court and duty to client - this would reflect a fairly negative view of barristers - that the fear of litigation would instantly have them dragging in every piece of evidence to avoid charges of negligence. This would put them at risk of wasted costs orders, also no court is going to find a barrister guilty of negligence for having placed his duty to the court before his duty to his client. Note also the difficulty of proving negligence for advocacy - causative link, especially in jury trials, advocacy is more of an art than a science, basically the negligence would have to be egregious before a case would succeed, and how could that be damaging to the profession.

I think the law library itself should be more efficient in facilitating the needs of the profession. I don't see chambers working, even though per OP it seems some resource pooling is happening.

There is a fundamental difference between the professions which I think is healthy.

Anyway just another view.

BehindTheScenes

I have just one question. Would combining the two professions not make it more expensive to seek legal advice, as someone completing a simple thing such as conveyancing would then be subsidising a barristers as well as paying for the solicitors?

On the point of reform for the profession as a whole, I would very much be in favour of some reform but from what I have seen happening in england and Wales as regards the Clementi review http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1038965.ece it could turn in to a very slippery slope. From what I have seen of the taxi regulator they have no interest in coming to a point where everyone is happy, it is solely based on the consumers interest.

Tom Young

Re: Taxi Regulator, yes. Its about consumer service, and we are a way behind. Effective Competition Law will see three aspects served. See Fingleton's paper: 'Regulate, or stay queueing?'

First point on making more money, fusion would make more money for practitioners. The issue is specialism. Barrister advocates are not solicitors. Its like comparing a worm to a black mamba, one likes to work hard and is content with turning over dirt, the other is in for a death style kill.

In re. making everybody happy: If the McDowell plans on licencing bars and pubs more like the contintent was allowed fly, one might just find that the 'water shed' style demand for taxi services deminishes drastically. The problem in this country is that there is an extremely powerful licencing and publicans lobby in government and making donations to the 'great and the good' of this banana republic. That may sound a little 'Eddie Hobbs' but its true. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Tom

PS: in fairness to the mad mullagh, the plan was actually quite in sync with the blatant consumerism we are surrounded with in Ireland. So it should have been allowed. It could remedy certain business that will shut owing to inability to hire and maintain requisite staff. If you want a prediction on this watch the restaurant trade.