header-logo header-logo

04 December 2008
Issue: 7348 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Direct access benefit in doubt

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

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