Practice Toolset

How have practitioners responded to the Final Report? Counsel rounds up some of the comments made on the NLJ Jackson webcast 

David Greene 

NLJ Consultant Editor & head of the litigation & dispute resolution team at Edwin Coe LLP. NLJ Jackson webcast participant 

“A lot of solicitors get their business from referral fees, agencies and management companies. If they didn’t get that business you would probably find that they would have to go out and advertise and spend the money in that way, so I don’t think it is a straight game in terms of referral fees. 

Catherine Piercy wonders whether the advocacy training provided by the BVC and the Inns will stand up in court.  

When I was born, no barrister was taught advocacy and most people—I am told—did not believe that it could be done. I am very much the product of the “new world”, having undergone the Bar Vocational Course (“BVC”), my Inn’s advocacy training during my BVC year, and most recently the pupillage course. Is it true that my years as a practitioner—should I be fortunate enough to get a tenancy—will be spent unlearning everything I have previously been taught? 

Simon Chadwick highlights the issues for chambers to consider when recruiting a chief executive.  

There are 690 chambers in the UK. Of those 67 have a serving chief executive or a practice director. Due, mainly, to the simple business structure of a typical barristers’ set, the job titles differ. However both roles show a degree of overlap and in some cases the responsibilities are identical. 

Freya Newbery explains the issues surrounding career breaks for barristers and reports on the recent Bar Council “Managing Career Breaks” seminar.  

As part of its commitment to retaining women in self-employed practice, the Bar Council hosted an immensely practical half-day seminar, “Managing Career Breaks”, on 23 October 2009. The seminar provided practical guidance to both barristers beginning a break or planning to return to practice following maternity leave or a career break, and those in chambers—such as equal opportunity officers, clerks and practice managers—responsible for managing career breaks and helping returners to re-build their practices. 

Following the difficulties experienced by Cardiff Law School’s “Quality Assurance for Advocates” pilot programme what are the options available for future monitoring schemes, asks David Wurtzel.  

One of the aspects of being self-employed is that there is no one to appraise or quality assure you. The prospect that this might change for the Bar arose three and a half years ago when Lord Carter recommended, “A proportionate system of quality monitoring based on the principles of peer review and a rounded appraisal and should be developed for all advocates working in the criminal, civil and family courts”—and in the first instance, for publicly funded criminal advocates. This was sometimes referred to as the “Carter trade-off”: practitioners would receive more money and in return would institute quality assurance (“QA”). The money was indeed forthcoming but QA was not. Ironically, just when the government is likely to renege on most of the rise in fees, criminal court advocates finally do face the development of a QA programme. The details are very far from decided. 

Dr Steve Connor, the Chief Executive of the National Centre for Domestic Violence, explains why he set up the charity. His work as a McKenzie friend has fired his interest in a career at the Bar 

By the time I begin what I hope will be a practice at the Bar, I will have completed nearly seven years as an advocate. It began in 2002, when I became aware that thousands of people who leave abusive relationships find the door to legal protection closed. I witnessed this first-hand when a friend failed to secure legal assistance for obtaining a civil injunction. This led me to found what is now the National Centre for Domestic Violence (“NCDV”), a specialist charity offering a free emergency injunction service. 

How should the Bar respond to the challenges it faces? David Wurtzel meets the new Chairman of the Bar Council, Nick Green QC, and finds he brings a sense of realism to the task ahead 

Nick Green QC, like most of his predecessors, succeeds to the chairmanship of the Bar in “momentous times”. What he in particular brings to the job is an understanding that the profession has changed as a result of the challenges which we have faced in recent years, that we cannot turn the clock back, but that there is a good deal we can do to maintain a vibrant, self-employed, referral Bar.  

The Bar Professional Training Course which replaces the Bar Vocational Course in September 2010 is evolution not revolution, believes Marcus Soanes.  

In September 2010, the Bar Professional Training Course (“BPTC”) replaces the existing Bar Vocational Course (“BVC”). The BVC was designed at the end of the 1980s by the Bar Council fulfilling its statutory obligation to maintain and enhance standards in education for the profession. That course established the pattern for the training that prepares students for pupillage, and placed written and interpersonal skills at its centre. Since that time, the Bar Council, and subsequently the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”), has refined the course requirements and validated several institutions across the country to deliver the BVC. Through its regulatory bodies, the profession has sought to standardise training for the Bar, and has, to a large extent, dictated the course curriculum, its length and the learning facilities for students. This means that institutions offering the programme have had to fulfil their validation requirements and to respond to revisions imposed on them. Over the years, several working parties were established to ensure that the BVC remained fit for purpose. The most significant was that chaired by the then Mr Justice Elias, which instituted changes to the course content and assessment framework from 2002. 

The BBC drama Criminal Justice 2 raised important social issues, believes James Woolf  

Last year I reviewed Criminal Justice for this magazine (see (2008) Counsel September, p 38). Its screening led to a public row between the Bar, and Peter Moffat, former barrister and writer of the series. Tim Dutton QC, last year’s Bar Chairman, accused the BBC of a woefully inaccurate depiction of the Bar, in particular because of the huge chasm between the on-screen barristers’ ethical practices and the actual Code of Conduct. Moffat’s response was to say that this was an overreaction, adding “[Timothy Dutton QC] wants to see things in black and white. At the Bar, just as in life, standards are all too often a different colour – grey.” My own view was that the series closely missed out on being brilliant because of these moments of implausibility. To cut a long story short, Moffat won a Bafta, the Bar forgot all about it and time marched on. 

The pro bono case of Compton—challenging a decision to close a local hospital—has clarified the law relating to protective costs orders. Guy Opperman explains why pro bono work really can make a difference.  

A court case is like a battle. And a test case, involving nine hearings and 12 judges over two years, is the mother of all military campaigns. So it was with the pro bono epic that culminated in the various decisions in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust (see [2008] EWCA Civ 749).  Pro bono provides assistance for those who are unable to afford legal representation. This case in its various forms took two years and multiple hearings. What began as a case protesting about the closure of hospital units in Wiltshire developed into a test case on the extent to which ordinary citizens can use protective costs orders (“PCOs”) to challenge decisions of public bodies.