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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll