Profession

How can direct access barristers avoid adverse rulings by the Legal Ombudsman? Adam Sampson reports.  

In February, the Administrative Court quashed a decision of the Ombudsman on the complaint of a client that a barrister had provided a “poor service” and remitted the matter for further consideration in the light of his judgment. It was the first successful judicial review against our scheme since we began to deal with cases over three years ago. 

Some while ago in these columns, I wrote about the Chancery Master, Richard Wakeford, whose valiant acts took place during the Second World War and for which he was awarded the highest Military decoration, the Victoria Cross.   

With the centenary of the commencement of the First World War, it is appropriate to remember another Chancery Master and his gallantry during that earlier conflict. 

Rupert Butler returned to the Bar in 2003, after a three year hiatus from practice. A barrister since 1988,  he specialises in various areas of law, including commercial, sports, and media. He spent two years working in a solicitors’ firm and it was here that he honed his litigation skills. At the time, he says, “I was always frustrated and held back by the limits on barristers [who wanted to undertake litigation]. It meant you could offer a service, but not a complete service...”  

That all changed in January 2014. The new Handbook was introduced by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). Previous rules preventing self-employed barristers from applying for authorisation to conduct litigation were removed. Butler is enthusiastic about the change – confident that it will help him adapt the way he delivers services to meet the needs of his clients. “I’m now a genuine one-stop-shop. I will now be able to handle [clients’] needs without the intervention of a solicitor.” 

Taryn Lee QC on a fresh approach to social mobility.  

Social mobility sparks all sorts of debate across the Bar. Is it easier to join the Bar if you have a less or more traditional background today? Are parental or familial links still as important as they once were? Should we be encouraging young people to consider a career at the Bar when we know how hard it is to start out in the current climate? 

Impact is the effect felt if a risk actually materialises into an event. An example might be that the risk of losing a key practitioner who is leading the way in developing a new practice area for chambers. There may be a number of reasons for their departure such as moving to another set or serious illness. The cause isn’t the issue; the impact of their loss, is.  

Likelihood is the chance of something happening. Some measure this mathematically but for the purposes of most businesses a broader assessment of probability is generally used. 

Alexander Gunning QC examines the COMBAR/CLLS terms and considers the basis of assumption of liablities.  

It is around eighteen months since a combination of regulatory changes resulted in barristers commonly contracting with solicitors for the provision of their services. Opinions remain divided over whether the switch to contracting has been to the benefit of the Bar. In this article I provide a brief description of the COMBAR/CLLS terms and address two of their more important aspects: the basis for payment and the assumption of liabilities. 

John G Browning takes a brief look at judges’ activities on social media and how this issue is being controlled in the United States.  

The issue of judges blogging, tweeting, and posting on Facebook and other social networking sites is a controversial subject that transcends international borders. Here in the United Kingdom, of course, guidelines adopted in 2012 ban judicial office holders from such activities in order to avoid damaging “public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general”. 

The recent “Victims’ Law” proposals by Sir Keir Starmer QC throw up the suggestion of judge as inquisitor and challenge our adversarial system. Professor Penny Cooper enters the debate and questions whether judges could or should cross-examine vulnerable witnesses.The recent “Victims’ Law” proposals by Sir Keir Starmer QC throw up the suggestion of judge as inquisitor and challenge our adversarial system. Professor Penny Cooper enters the debate and questions whether judges could or should cross-examine vulnerable witnesses.  

Writing under the heading ‘A Voice for Victims of Crime’, the former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC is rightly concerned about matters which discourage victims from coming forward to report crimes and from subjecting themselves to cross-examination. He chairs a Labour Party Task Force (established in December 2013) which is to come up with proposals for a new ‘Victims’ Law’. He has suggested that a better way forward might be for judges rather than advocates to challenge the accounts of vulnerable witnesses... 

Max Hardy on the Anglo-Dutch Exchange in London this Autumn and the need for barristers with spare rooms to act as hosts.  

Tuesday 28 October to Saturday 1 November 2014 sees the Anglo-Dutch Exchange (ADE) taking place in London. This biennial event alternates between The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 30 young lawyers from the Young Bars of Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam will be coming to London to see, hear and learn about the English justice system. The Exchange is being organised jointly by the Young Barristers’ Committee, the Junior Lawyers’ Division and the London Young Lawyers Group. It has one of the longest and most distinguished pedigrees of any legal exchange having been instituted in 1966. 

The review of independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales by former  Permanent Under Secretary Sir Bill Jeffrey and published on 7 May acknowledges the  current concerns of the criminal Bar and recognises its strengths as “a substantial  national asset”, but has put forward a  series of proposals which are unlikely to  find favour amongst barristers.  

In preparing his report he took soundings from representatives on both sides of the profession and the judiciary and consulted statistical evidence. He concluded that “there are many more criminal advocates than there is work for  them to do”. Barristers undergo vastly more initial mandatory training in advocacy than do solicitors but find themselves with “a diminishing share of the work, and are beaten neither on price [there is no price competition in publicly funded criminal work, he noted elsewhere] nor on quality”.