Client-Barrister relationship

Victor

Article informs http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0115/1224262377581.html

Judge's ruling on solicitors in courts

A District Court judge has said he intends to insist that all counsel appearing before him for accused persons must have solicitors in court rather than have defence instructions taken directly from clients by the barristers.

Judge Seán MacBride said yesterday at Carrickmacross District Court, Co Monaghan that it was, in his opinion, not appropriate for counsel to be getting direct instructions from members of the public.

He made his comments during a case in which counsel was representing a defendant without an instructing solicitor in court.

What controls the Client-Barrister relationship? I know it is normal that barristers will normally only deal with a solicitor (or other legally trained / "smart" person), but is this a matter of law, court rules, King's Inns rules, common practice?

Tom Young

Bar Council rules, Rules of Court (though not the district court ones!) and to some degree common practice.

The profession does not allow for 'stand alone' direct instruction from a client, it comes via a solicitor who retains Counsel for the client.

dermot_sheehan

A barrister is entitled to appear in the district court without being attended by a solicitor if "instructed" by a solicitor.

There is no definition of "instructed" or "instructions" in the District Court rules.


A barrister is entitled to ask a client whether he wishes to plea, what his version of a particular event is, and other relevant information out of eye and ear shot outside of court and whether such instructions took place, where or with whom are matters of professional legal privilege.

Code 3.7 of the Barrister's code of conduct prohibits the taking of "instructions" directly from a client in contentious matters. In the code "instructions" means:

(g) The term instructions includes a request (whether or not accompanied by documents) to advise, to draft proceedings or other legal documents, and/or to appear in Court or before any tribunal or other body.

Of particular note it does not include having an in court consultation with a client.


Barristers appear in the District Court as of right and not by leave of the judge. I know from personal experience from a colleague that Judge MacBridge for whatever reason takes a particular dislike to having barrister's in his court, instead preferring local solicitors to appear. He was a solicitor himself before being appointed to the bench.

If he follows through with his threat it would in my belief be grounds for judicial review.

Our man in Havana

You do often do see barristers representing clients without solicitors in some district courts in criminal cases. I have never seen a judge take issue with the practice.

eagle_&_bear

Bond-007 wrote: »

You do often do see barristers representing clients without solicitors in some district courts in criminal cases. I have never seen a judge take issue with the practice.

go to naas/kilcock district court a DJ refused to hear counsel on a matter where he was validly instructed and wouldnt let counsel stand.

went all the way to the Bar Council -the local solicitors complained because they were'nt getting the work

Our man in Havana

What was the result of it?

eagle_&_bear

Bond-007 wrote: »

What was the result of it?

I know the BC were writing to the DJ about it but I'll ask on Wednesday when I'm back in and I'll post then when I know how it settled.

dermot_sheehan

The normal result is for the Bar Council to write to the President of the District Court to kindly ask her to remind her judges that barristers appear as of right in their courts and not by leave of the court.

For the case in question a judicial review is the only remedy, the problem is though that costs are not awarded against judges in judicial reviews.

Victor

Who pays? The state or the applicant?

Our man in Havana

The applicant. The state would not be a party to the JR.

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

What controls the Client-Barrister relationship? I know it is normal that barristers will normally only deal with a solicitor (or other legally trained / "smart" person), but is this a matter of law, court rules, King's Inns rules, common practice?

gabhain7 wrote: »

Code 3.7 of the Barrister's code of conduct prohibits the taking of "instructions" directly from a client in contentious matters. In the code "instructions" means:

(g) The term instructions includes a request (whether or not accompanied by documents) to advise, to draft proceedings or other legal documents, and/or to appear in Court or before any tribunal or other body.

Great thread Victor.

I believe that this a becoming a major puzzle for clients and barristers alike and more so clients. I heard that during the summer the Bar council sent out a memorandum/message reminding Barristers about this code. So what does it meanreally?

Gabhain7 has kindly provided the code and although it appears very vague it does define what an instruction is and consequently Victor has noted that in practice a legally trained person might make that request. What is puzzling is what happens next say in the following scenario:

I would be of the opinion that no instruction was given in the following scenario where a secretary working for a tiny solicitors office physically sourced a barrister themselves and requested that barrister for Joe soap and then instead of a/the solicitor attending and "instructing" the barrister the secretary remains the sole contact to the barrister and attends the consultation and handles the documents and attends the court and at no time does the solicitor get involved.

If Joe soap was mislead into thinking that the secretary was an appropiately qualified solicitor i would imagine that Joe soap on discovering that a mere secretary was instructing his barrister he might be furious and make a complaint against the barrister to the bar council.

Would it make a difference if the secretary had perhaps a certifcate in law from a night class and or having worked in a solicitors office for a couple of years be sufficent to allow this to be a request/instruction as defined by the code in the above scenario.

Was Joe Soap duped ?

McCrack

A "mere" secretary in any practice would not take it on themselves to ask Counsel to act. In reality practices have working relationships with Counsel and the decision to send Papers to Counsel would come through a solicitor working there.

pirelli

McCrack wrote: »

A "mere" secretary in any practice would not take it on themselves to ask Counsel to act. In reality practices have working relationships with Counsel and the decision to send Papers to Counsel would come through a solicitor working there.

I like the way you put quotation marks on the word mere as if i think so little of Secretaries. I think using an ambulance driver to attend to put out a fire and a fireman to to take a attend an injured person is is the wrong way around.

A student nurse to do heart surgery on my mother would be insulting. If the nurse want's to be heart surgeon go to medical school and qualify. The same goes for a secretary that can wreck the purpose of justice through courts by fouling up a case because they think that because they work in a solicitors office that they can ring barristers themselves and set up meetings with clients.

Also the secretary would be the first point of contact to client and barrister. As you say fine if a solictor turns up at some point but not so fine if no solictor gets involved and it is the secretary that arrives in a suit with a briefcase acting like a solictor and starts taking notes and dictating because then who is instructing the barrister.

McCrack in your post you say routinely this might not be the practice however when there is one solicitor in a busy office who hasnt time to even talk to small clients then you can have this type of activity.

If it were a apprentice solicitor it wouldn't be so bad but a secretary with perhaps some night school certs on law shouldn't be doing this.

Should you scratch the surface you will find there have been some misunderstandings to this relationship. A casual indifference perhaps that has led to solicitors to take short cuts and the above scenario is quite realistic.

How can one justify the above scenario ( post above Mccracks) as an instruction. Thats the problem. I don't suppose the fact that the solicitors knows the secretary is doing this makes it all right. I am working off the scenario as an example of what can go on McCrack and not real general practice.

In my experience there are solicitors ( not painting the entire industry) that treat tribunials and so forth as trivial and might send an apprentice which is technically unacceptable. As for a secretary requesting a barrister through another barrister and acting as the person instructing without informing the client is I think a little more than a misunderstanding, its forcing things to happen and is reckless and perhaps deceitful.

McCrack

Pirelli the reality is that solicitors will instruct Counsel. Secretaries/Legal execs etc dont. They will act as the conduit in sending Papers down to Counsel. Often they will attend Counsel at consent Motions to hand papers up simply because it wouldnt be practical for the solicitor to spend a morning down the Courts waiting to be called or seek return dates, attend at the Masters or County Registrar etc etc simple things that dont require the services of a solicitor taking time out of the office to attend.

I have never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would the sole representative at a liability/settlement meeting or trial. It just doesnt happen.

dermot_sheehan

Just to add the code of conduct of the bar is available online here:

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=581

Reloc8

McCrack wrote: »

I have never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would the sole representative at a liability/settlement meeting or trial. It just doesnt happen.

erm...I wouldn't accept that (that it doesn't happen)...I don't doubt your personal experience mind.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

erm...I wouldn't accept that (that it doesn't happen)...I don't doubt your personal experience mind.

So it does happen!

I know this wont be a popular question because its unfair to label something as right or wrong without all the facts particuarly in your own profession, but as it does happen is it not in breach of the code fo conduct.

dats_right

pirelli wrote: »

So it does happen!

That poster doesn't back up his assertion with any evidence or personal experience, whereas the other poster does, so aren't you a little premature jumping to the above conclusion?

I would echo McCrack's experiences, as somebody who does a significant amount of litigation work, that I hava also never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would be the sole representative at a liability/ settlement meeting or trial. I think people are mixing up pre-trial motions and applications where it is reasonably common that Counsel be attended by apprentices or legal execs with the business end of the case i.e. trial/settlement.

Reloc8

dats_right wrote: »

That poster doesn't back up his assertion with any evidence or personal experience, whereas the other poster does, so aren't you a little premature jumping to the above conclusion?

I would echo McCrack's experiences, as somebody who does a significant amount of litigation work, that I hava also never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would be the sole representative at a liability/ settlement meeting or trial. I think people are mixing up pre-trial motions and applications where it is reasonably common that Counsel be attended by apprentices or legal execs with the business end of the case i.e. trial/settlement.

Well...litigation (civil & criminal) is what I do. I'm not mixing up pre-trial motions or applications.

Reloc8

pirelli wrote: »

So it does happen!

I know this wont be a popular question because its unfair to label something as right or wrong without all the facts particuarly in your own profession, but as it does happen is it not in breach of the code fo conduct.

Nope not at all.

eagle_&_bear

anyone with permission to act (agent or principal) can deal with settlements or instructions if there's a letter confirming the remit of their instruction and/or permissions therein

pirelli

dats_right wrote: »

That poster doesn't back up his assertion with any evidence or personal experience, whereas the other poster does, so aren't you a little premature jumping to the above conclusion?

I would echo McCrack's experiences, as somebody who does a significant amount of litigation work, that I hava also never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would be the sole representative at a liability/ settlement meeting or trial. I think people are mixing up pre-trial motions and applications where it is reasonably common that Counsel be attended by apprentices or legal execs with the business end of the case i.e. trial/settlement.

Reloc is a regular poster on the legal forum. I trust his opinon. Also is there not two sides to the client - barrister relationship and the other side being the client whom might have very little experience in the profession. You don't have to have legal resume and a brass plate just to post an opinion on the subject.

It is fanciful that you would take this line with me.

As if I would believe that McCrack has been present at every client barrister meeting and or court/ tribunial hearing in ireland that he can say with certainity such things never ever happen.

That's illogical and i was keeping the discussion open by accepting a fair and reasonable opinion from a regular poster along with McCracks thats " the end of the matter" post.

I think I am a able to manage this and perhaps I am curious to see what people have to say and would like to scratch the surface.

You have suggested the secreatry/legal exec interaction might only be at motions etc that i am perhaps confusing the actual topic and let me thank you for trashing it out but no i am quite clear on the topic.

I am not confusing the topic and if shanebaby and or joe wish to add something to the discussion now that we have established this i would be grateful also to hear their opinion.

Reloc8

Seeing as how we are discussing the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland and there has been a lot of assertions not only that certain things never happen, but also that if they did they would be in breach of same - or at least that is the implication - I wonder if everybody has actually read the thing.

Here is a link http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=581&m=f

This bit is interesting :

5.15 In general barristers shall be attended in court by their instructing solicitor or their clerk or assistant but it is not necessary that they be so attended when moving an application for an adjournment.

i.e. there is nothing whatsover in breach of the Code by a barrister being attended during trial by a clerk or assistant of the instructing solicitor although some practictioners on the solicitor side may sometimes or all the time prefer not to exercise this option.

Insofar as it is of course very desirable that a barrister is at all times attended this is not least to ensure that there is an independent note taken of advice given and instructions received from the client. It is also the case that the client is probably best served by the attendance of their actual solicitor at court with the barrister this is a matter between the client and their solicitor.

Insofar as settlement meetings are concerned a properly instructed barrister need not in my personal opinion have his or her solicitor/clerk/assistance in attendance however it is always very preferable that an objective note is being taken of instructions and advice etc. and attendance in this manner theoretically ensures that this is done.

dats_right

pirelli wrote: »

Reloc is a regular poster on the legal forum. I trust his opinon.

Funny that you trust his opinion when it corresponds with your own, when other posters who don't, of which I am obviously one, by implication you don't.

pirelli wrote: »

Also is there not two sides to the client - barrister relationship and the other side being the client whom might have very little experience in the profession. You don't have to have legal resume and a brass plate just to post an opinion on the subject.

I'm sorry, but I haven't got a clue what this means

pirelli wrote: »

It is fanciful that you would take this line with me.

I really don't see how. You unquestioningly accept reloc's comments as fact without, it appears, any personal experience whatsoever as clearly illustrated when you said: "So it does happen!"; and when I made the following statement/ asked the question in response: "That poster doesn't back up his assertion with any evidence or personal experience, whereas the other poster does, so aren't you a little premature jumping to the above conclusion?", somehow I'm being 'fanciful'. Well, I suggest that I am being credible and objective and it is you who is being fanciful and disingenuous by disregarding other posters who have experience of such matters because their opinions don't tally with your own.

pirelli wrote: »

As if I would believe that McCrack has been present at every client barrister meeting and or court/ tribunial hearing in ireland that he can say with certainity such things never ever happen.

That's illogical...

I agree it would be illogical to suggest that, but then again, you seem to be imagining things that were neither said nor implied. If you read the posts properly you would see that both McCrack's and my own comments were based on our own personal experiences.

pirelli wrote: »

... and i was keeping the discussion open by accepting a fair and reasonable opinion from a regular poster along with McCracks thats " the end of the matter" post.

I fail to see how you can so readily and conclusively accept the opinion of one regular poster to the exclusion of two others (and backed up by two further posters) when you have no personal experience or knowledge to justify your conclusion.

pirelli wrote: »

I think I am a able to manage this and perhaps I am curious to see what people have to say and would like to scratch the surface.

It could be alleged that you seem to have far more interest in the comment that supports you own view, rather than the comments which don't.

pirelli wrote: »

You have suggested the secreatry/legal exec interaction might only be at motions etc that i am perhaps confusing the actual topic and let me thank you for trashing it out but no i am quite clear on the topic...I am not confusing the topic

No, I didn't. I'm sorry I don't want to overly pedantic but they aren't the same thing at all. I didn't refer to secretary/legal exec interaction, which is very different than what I said, I specifically referred to "Counsel be attended by apprentices or legal execs" at Motions, etc. I fully accept that Legal secs/ legal execs may, and most likely will, have very much more interaction with counsel, witnesses, courts service, solicitors, etc at various stages during the running of a file.

Secondly, I don't know why you feel my comments were aimed or were personalised towards you in some way, because I can assure you that they were not. In any event, I'm glad you are so clear on the 'topic', by topic I take it you mean the difference between pre-trial motions and the business end of proceedings i.e. hearings and settlement meetings? I would, however, have to question your apparent clarity as it again is seemingly only based on your own, albeit inexperienced, view and the comment of one poster.

pirelli wrote: »

if shanebaby and or joe wish to add something to the discussion now that we have established this i would be grateful also to hear their opinion.

There contribution thus far was to agree with my earlier post! Nonetheless, I would welcome hearing from them, but I would genuinely be far more interested in hearing Reloc's personal experiences of seeing a secretary/legal exec as the sole representative at a liability/settlement meeting or trial.

Reloc8

I'm not giving an opinion on whether e.g. settlements are reached without solicitors being present, its just a fact that they are - I was careful to say that I don't doubt anybody elses personal experience for a moment.

Anybody involved in legal practice...rack your brains for a moment...ever gotten a phone call from Counsel to say a case had been settled following a meeting between Counsel ?

NB to avoid silliness you may presume Counsel telephoning you was instructed in the matter (otherwise he'd just be some kind of lunatic).

dats_right

Reloc8 wrote: »

Anybody involved in legal practice...rack your brains for a moment...ever gotten a phone call from Counsel to say a case had been settled following a meeting between Counsel ?

NB to avoid silliness you may presume Counsel telephoning you was instructed in the matter (otherwise he'd just be some kind of lunatic).

Absolutely fundametal to this is to remember that counsel can only settle something based on their express instructions, they quite simply do not have the authority to settle anything without instructions. And who gives counsel their instructions? The solicitor, who must obtain same from the client. In circumstances where there is no instructions the barrister simply has no authority to settle and can't therefore ring you to tell you that he has settled. The barrister can tell you [the solicitor]that he has discussed the matter with his opponent and that either an offer has been made to him/her or an indication of what might be acceptable has been suggested, in which case the barrister must contact the solicitor and request that any offer is put to the client and the client's instructions sought on the matter. The barrister cannot however unilaterally accept or reject any offer or settle the matter without instructions.

So I don't think your comments are the same thing at all as was being discussed. In fariness to you, I think you are probably talking about a situation where either; one side throws in the towel and offers the other side everything the other side have been instructed to seek, or, where counsel amongst themselves resolve a matter where there is the basis and more importantly the instructions to settle e.g. where say at a settlement meeting an offer of '€50k all in is made' and rejected by the client on the basis that they want say '€50k plus costs';the meeting ends but afterwards the original offer is upped to what was being sought, well then based on the previous instructions the barrister can probably settle. But in both these scenarios or any other time a barrister rings you to inform you they have settled a case it can only be when they have been so instructed that same is acceptable.

Reloc8 wrote: »

I'm not giving an opinion on whether e.g. settlements are reached without solicitors being present, its just a fact that they are - I was careful to say that I don't doubt anybody elses personal experience for a moment.

Well if you are talking about the type of limited scenarios above, I suppose then that is correct. But it would be very misleading to suggest that settlements are taking place via counsel without instructions from solicitors. Really that is the crux of the issue here, and not; that in very narrow or limited circumstances matters settle by receiving a call from counsel.

In any eveny,despite your assertion to the contrary, I strongly stand by my position that I have never come across a situation where a secretary/legal exec would be the sole representative at a liability/ settlement meeting or trial and nothing you or others have said has yet lead me even to the suspicion that this is not the case.

Reloc8

Hmmm...wierd, I made a lengthy post in this thread which has disappeared.

Anyway, if your position is that you've never come accross it then so be it - don't doubt you for a moment.

If your position is that it never happens you are simply incorrect - I don't mean for that to be taken in a confrontational manner at all by the way, but I can't say it any other way.

pirelli

dats_right wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by dats_right
– [sic] – If you read the posts properly you would see that both McCrack's and my own comments were based on our own personal experiences.

Yes , that is a common theme.

Most of these posts are about persons own personal experiences and that's where it becomes impossible to continue a discussion without persons taking matters personnally.
( Myself included on occassion.)

In reality this thread has nothing to do with us personally. Personal experiences shouldn't lock a discussion in a heated debate.

It's unfortunate you always take this position as your quite intelligent and you have a better grasp of this topic than reloc8 but it's childish arguing with you over your personal experiences.

dats_right wrote: »

Well, I suggest that I am being credible and objective and it is you who is being fanciful and disingenuous by disregarding other posters who have experience of such matters because their opinions don't tally with your own.

I agree it would be illogical to suggest that, but then again, you seem to be imagining things that were neither said nor implied.


I fail to see how you can so readily and conclusively accept the opinion of one regular poster to the exclusion of two others (and backed up by two further posters) when you have no personal experience or knowledge to justify your conclusion.

It could be alleged that you seem to have far more interest in the comment that supports you own view, rather than the comments which don.

I am not a legal professional although i have certifcate level of knowledge, I can rarely therefore bring brilliant academic debate to a legal discussion. I am a professional however and intelligent enough to see a discussion and want to see a solution to it.


I wouldn't read legal forums if i wasn't keenly interested in some of the topics discussed here. It is surprising though how many people disagree on this topic.

Eagle and bear suggests that anyone with permission to act (agent or principal) can deal with settlements or instructions if there's a letter confirming the remit of their instruction and/or permissions therein.

Whilst reloc8 goes on to say that there is nothing whatsover in breach of the Code by a barrister being attended during trial by a clerk or assistant of the instructing solicitor.

However in my opinion this discussion would be better served by considering if there is a breach of the code of barrister if the trial is attended by a clerk or assistant IF the assitant/clerk did not have a letter confirming the remit of their instruction and or more to the point the barrister has never had any dealings with the solicitor and was retained by an assistant.

There has to be something concrete to make something an instruction.I do not believe that an agent or principle can orchestrate everything without the barrister ever having any form of contact with the solicitor.

Otherwise it would seem that the barristers conduct depends on the relationship between the solictor and his assitant. Maybe the assistant is brilliant and they are running a brilliant case or its a fraud and the solicitor hasn't time and is abusing the barrister privileges and has left it all to his assitant to handle.

Would it not be reasonable to see that no instruction has occured where a barrister has not been contacted by a solicitor in some way other than their assistant or agent ( unless they have a letter of instruction ).

The code of conduct exists for a reason and I think it is to prevent lunactic assitants running cases through a barrister from an office of overworked and couldn't give a damn solicitors. I could set up a solictors office and pay my assitant on a commison only basis for every case he brings in and runs through a barrister withour ever bothering me the solictor. Is that acceptable to the bar council !

At what point do alarm bells ring in a barristers mind when handling a case through an assitant. That would be my complaint against the barrister for alowing an assitant to run a case through him.

Ivory

What the heck are you all talking about? There should just be lawyers. No more of this weird barrister/solicitor distinction. If you get arrested or have a civil case, you should just have a lawyer that you can talk to about your case and let him or her get on with representing you. If you have questions or input you should just talk to your lawyer. If there is a decent policy reason for keeping up this anachronistic oddity of there being two different kinds of lawyers please explain it to me someone.

ColinJennings

People often think it is cheaper and fairer to have a fused profession. I disagree. It would probably increase the cost of access to the best advocates and certainly limit that access in such a way that good legal advice will become a privilege, not a right.

There are already the 'big five' law firms in Dublin along with a number of other large firms. If barristers were allowed to join those firms their skill and expertise would only be available to clients of one particular firm. One only has to look to the accountancy profession for evidence that the emergence of large, blue chip firms with international links is not always associated with cut-throat competition with smaller undertakings on fees. Which is not to say that there is no competition or tendering in the accountancy sector; there is, but big firm dominance in law and accountancy is simply not generally associated with low consumer cost.

If people are that concerned about costs, solicitors and barristers are obliged to give estimates of their fees at the outset, so there should be no surprise at the conclusion of a matter when a bill of costs comes in.

Ending a situation in which smaller solicitors practices across the country would have equal access to the best advocates in the system would have potentially serious implications for the tone and fairness of our adversarial system of justice. The model of access to an independent referral bar through small scale solicitors undertakings is the best way to ensure parity of access to advocates. This is particularly important here as in our common law system, the courts operate on the basis of advocacy to a far greater extent than other systems. Ensuring significant "equality of firepower" in terms of advocacy as a matter of course gives the lone citizen or the marginalized group a far better chance of being equal in the eyes of the law as a matter of fact as well as in theory.

One must look at the case last year of McCann, where a woman who was threatened with imprisonment due to her inability to pay her debts managed to obtain the services of Donal O'Donnell, who was widely regarded as being if not the best, certainly one of the best advocates at the bar. He has since been promoted to the Supreme Court.

The professional obligation of the Bar to be prepared to accept instructions on either side of an issue (the so-called "taxi-cab" principle) has meant that the under-dog has always had a good chance of proper representation, even for unpopular causes. That rule has enabled many solicitors to act as pioneers in ground-breaking litigation. It has also meant that "no foal, no fee" cases were taken. In the era of the time-sheet, large firms with the best advocates would be under huge pressure to avoid that type of work, which is so important.

Fusion would also probably end the practice of prosecutors and defenders being chosen as advocates from the same pool of advocates in the area of criminal law. That could have serious implications for the criminal justice system. The State, being the largest single client of legal services would have all the best counsel in their 'firm', leaving the accused to rely on the remainder. While there are a number of excellent counsel that specialise in defence work, the number of counsel that accept no work from the state as a practice could probably be counted on one hand.

pirelli

Ivory wrote: »

What the heck are you all talking about? There should just be lawyers. No more of this weird barrister/solicitor distinction. If you get arrested or have a civil case, you should just have a lawyer that you can talk to about your case and let him or her get on with representing you. If you have questions or input you should just talk to your lawyer. If there is a decent policy reason for keeping up this anachronistic oddity of there being two different kinds of lawyers please explain it to me someone.

What the heck are you saying.

Are suggesting that barristers were essentially parading around in their fancy invisible silks. Now that you mention it why do we have barristers as all i can see is cheap gents in cheap trousers and smellly jumpers hanging around the bar library.Unless of course i have gone too far down the quays.


Please back to the topic.Lets see these chaps solve the client - barrister relationship and if they can't then we will talk fusion.

jenny jinks

I work as the secretary to a solicitor. It is a one man practise. I regularly end up holding the fort, including sitting at trials. Sometimes clients ring up when my boss is in court. I often have to ring counsel before consulting my boss as a result. One of my flat mates also does the very same thing in her firm even though there are two solicitors. It is different in the bigger firms. Some of the girls who were in my secretarial college and work in the big offices are amazed at the thing I am doing. They are not allowed anywhere near a client or barrister.

pirelli

jenny jinks wrote: »

I work as the secretary to a solicitor. It is a one man practise. I regularly end up holding the fort, including sitting at trials. Sometimes clients ring up when my boss is in court. I often have to ring counsel before consulting my boss as a result. One of my flat mates also does the very same thing in her firm even though there are two solicitors. It is different in the bigger firms. Some of the girls who were in my secretarial college and work in the big offices are amazed at the thing I am doing. They are not allowed anywhere near a client or barrister.

I am not sure that you have shown that these barristers were not instructed.In fact it would be rather hard for a secretaryor client to prove it. Hence the reason why people should complain to the bar council and have it investigated.


As reloc8 has shown; the rules are rather broad and I want to taper it down to a point where a secretary of a solictors office has retained a barrister yet nonethless the solictor of that office has failed to instruct that barrister. I want to try establish this as a breach of the barrister code and discuss it.

Should a secretary retain a barrister and basically handle the case him/herself then I believe that is a failure to receive instruction and a breach of barristers code and a tort deceit on the solictors side.