header-logo header-logo

26 November 2009
Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Barristers approved to form LDPs

Solicitors & barristers allowed to form businesses, after extensive consulation

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has given its approval for barristers to supply legal services through legal disciplinary practices (LDPs).

The decision which paves the way for barristers to set up in business with solicitors, and follows extensive work by a BSB working group, including three consultations on the possible impact of the Legal Services Act 2007.

Nicholas Green QC, the chairman-elect of the Bar Council, says: “The BSB’s decision represent an historic moment for the Bar.”

The BSB emphasised, in a statement released last week, that it did not want to lose the “unique attributes” of the Bar, including the cab-rank rule, independence of thought and collegiality through membership of the profession and the Inns of Court.

The board adopted a number of recommendations regarding LDPs:
l barristers should be permitted to become managers of LDPs which include up to 25% non-lawyer managers;
l barristers should be permitted to practise as both managers and as independent practitioners, and detailed guidance will be developed relating to this;
l barristers should be discouraged from becoming shareholders in LDPs due to possible conflict of interest issues, until further guidance is issued;
l barristers should be permitted to form barrister-only partnerships (BoPs) pending the creation of an appropriate regulator for such entities;
l barristers should be permitted in principle to practise through other barrister-only companies and limited liability partnerships; and
l the cab-rank rule will apply to barrister-only partnerships, and the BSB considers that all advocates should be subject to the cab-rank rule and will be raising this with other regulators.

The recommendations will take effect once they have been approved by the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Board.

Baroness Deech, chairman of the BSB, says: “[This] will send a shot of adrenaline through the profession.

“Our decisions on LDPs reflect the need to develop and enhance the supply of legal services so as to best serve clients of the Bar and guarantee access to justice.

"In relation to shareholding in LDPs, we discourage this until we are confident that proper clarification and guidance is in place about conflicts. In relation to dual practice, we hope to provide flexibility in the provision of barristers’ services to the benefit of both practitioners  and consumers."
 

Issue: 7395 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll