The Criminal Bar, and in particular, the CBA, have ramped up their campaign against the cuts to legal aid and to legal services in general. Have a look here for the CBS's take on it all.
I agree that the cuts to legal services will be damaging - to the service of justice, to the whole system and to the general public. I'm not sure, however, that the message is being put across in the best way. Of course I understand that for criminal barristers, this is their livelihood - I really do. The sad truth is, however, that the general public do not care if a barrister is hard up. They don't care that barrister stacked up tens of thousands of pounds in debt becoming a barrister. What they will care about is the reduction in justice - and the possibility that their trial, should that ever happen, might just be less fair than it should be.
The public's perception of the justice system is that it is the best in the world and that it's participants - the lawyers - are very well paid. They can't tell the difference between a solicitor and a barrister and wouldn't really care if they could. All that matters to anyone caught up in the system is that their case is handled fairly.
That is what we should be shouting about - the reduction to justice. At first hearing it is possible that BVT and OCOF sound as if they should be good ideas but - it will be lowest cost tendering, I think we all know that. Cost and quality are not mutually exclusive - but in most cases the cheapest system is not the best. This particularly applies to criminal justice.
Yes of course a case could be prosecuted by some junior in-house advocate from the CPS - but it is wrong that I might get off in these circumstance because I can afford some hot-shot barrister who runs rings around the over-worked and harassed CPS. It is just as wrong to look at this imbalance and suggest, as I believe the MoJ has, that if, for example, the CPS do not instruct a Silk then the defence will be banned from doing so. This is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time (and so I hope it's not true).
I don't understand the government's position. In many fields they say that an open market is the way forward - and then in the criminal justice field they seek to control and compress the market.
The changes suggested are wrong and the CBA's campaign to oppose QASA thereby denying the MoJ the chance to implement BVT and OCOF is, I think, a good one.
Make the point, please, that these actions are being taken not to protect an overpaid criminal barrister (who probably no longer exist) but to protect justice for all. This is a good fight to have so its very important that the PR message is the right one.
#NoToQASA
Showing posts with label Barrister. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barrister. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Starting on the wrong foot...
Secondly, it means that I have been in contact with my insurer. To be honest, it wasn't something that I was looking forward to because in the past (and with other insurance companies, I should add) communication has been difficult.
I'm insured with Sheila's Wheels (mostly for my wife's amusement - she likes the idea of me having to tell people that). I called the claims line and got a recorded message asking me to confirm that I could answer "yes" to four questions - all to do with making fraudulent claims. Having done that I spoke with a very pleasant chap who dealt with everything efficiently, politely and quickly.
It was, however, an unfortunate start to a relationship or a communication. Like most insured people, I have no intention of making a fraudulent claim and feel a little aggrieved that this is the first thing that is mentioned. I understand that it is perhaps something that they need to get out of the way - but there must be a better way of starting a phone call - particularly when it is a claims line which means that anyone calling is likely to be a little upset already.
The same happens (or should happen...) in barristers' chambers. the Bar Standards Board require sets to write to the lay client - in every case, and at the beginning of the case - to explain the complaints procedure should they wish to make a claim. Again - I understand that the BSB are trying to make it easy for ordinary people to be able to complain about a professional. It is, however, a very unfortunate star: "Hello, sir. I'm your barrister, Mr. Blair. If you want to complain about me, this is how to do it".
In this day and age of technology, there must be a better way. Surely every case could be centrally logged (automatically from the firm or chambers case management system) with a single reference number (on a card with a QR or bar code perhaps), from which the client can access information about every person (solicitor, barrister, case worker, etc) who has dealt with their case. Quick, simple, and it avoids starting off on the wrong foot.
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
New E&D Rules - is it complicated
I wrote earlier about the new Rules from the Bar Standards Board with regard to Equality & Diversity. I was approached by a Senior Clerk yesterday and asked if it was all that difficult to comply with the new new Rules. I decided not to mention that the new Rules were now in force and so it might be a little late to start worrying - and instead ran through the work involved...
Your chambers will need to have:
A new Equality Policy
This will need to be fully compliant with the new Rules and that includes sections on parental leave, returning to work, fair access to work, flexible working, etc
That sounds OK - but the general guidance from the BSB suggests that this should be a single document rather than a collection and so someone will need to combine what exists, get it into a single format and ensure that it complies with the Rules, including some of the suggested wording in the Guidance.
You will need to tell chambers about the new policy - but I will deal with communication and training later. At this stage I will just mention the new duty that exists under the Rules for every member of chambers to ensure compliance - not just the Head of Chambers. That i.s likely to require a couple of meetings with all members, and update in writing and then a way of making sure that everyone has seen and understands the new policy.
Sometimes it can be easier to start from scratch than to try to amend an old policy - but either way I think there are probably a couple of days' work in there.
Action Plan
New to this set of Rules is the Action Plan. The Rules require a detailed plan that says how the policy will be implemented, who will perform each task, when they will perform it, and how the managers of chambers will know that each task has been completed.
This will take a while. Every statement in the Policy needs to be backed up here with a statement of who, when, what, and how.
So maybe another couple of days doing this.
Processes and Procedures
Your action plan will lead on to a requirement for new procedures and processes so that the tasks and requirements of the Action Plan are implemented automatically and become part of the operational life of chambers.
I have dismissed in two paragraphs a huge amount of work. Your E&D Policy will say that, for example, all members will have fair access to work. Your Action Plan will then probably address that point by detailing a member or group of members to define 'fair access to work'; the senior clerk (probably) to making sure that fair access is given; the same senior clerk to making sure that the record keeping in chambers is capable of reporting; and then someone will be detailed to produce a periodic report for the management committee to prove that the Policy is being adhered to. So far so good. Your chambers will then need a procedure to ensure that there is a systematic way of recording how work comes into chambers, who does the work and how (or whether) that work is allocated. Another procedure will be required to report to the clerks day to day so that if any patterns are emerging, they have time to do something about it. Ideally there will be some sort of process to automatically collect the statistics, but if not then there will need to be a procedure to gather and analyse them, say, monthly. Finally there will need to be a standardised report than can be completed. The management committee will then need to have a procedure to make sure that comments from their report are fed back into the systems above.
Remember, this is a new set of Rules. It is not enough to say that the documents and procedures are there. The Rules will be audited by looking for evidence that statistics are gathered and that they are discussed and acted upon.
The same sets of steps will be required for each statement in the Policy and each line in the Action Plan.
Depending on the quality of your existing documents, I estimate that this is 7 to 10 days' work. Each process and procedure must be documented and implemented - and then 'trained in'.
Training & Communications
The 'old days' of being compliant by having the documents in place somewhere are over. As I have already mentioned, members of chambers have a personal responsibility to ensure compliance and so they will need to know what is done in chambers. There will need to be a process to report to members and a way for them to get information.
Members of staff need to be trained on their responsibilities. A compliance audit might simply walk into the clerks room and ask one of the clerks - not the Senior Clerk - what they know about fair access to work. They need to know and there needs to be evidence that they have been told. So a set of procedures to make sure that there are regular updates and training sessions and that these sessions are recorded. Chambers only defence might be to be able to say "We do train the clerks regularly and here is the information we tell them, this is how often we tell them, and here are the attendance records showing that the clerks attended recently".
Your chambers will have a number of training sessions and an annual calendar of the activities required throughout the year
There's more...
Statistics
This is another new requirement. Every set of chambers must gather various sets of statistics - on recruitment and on the make-up of chambers, for example. Chambers must gather statistics on its members, using a formula of questions supplied, and analyse and publish these statistics on their web site by the end of December this year. If you have ever tried to get information out of busy people (particularly if, as is likely in this case, they feel that the questions are either stupid or just plain nosey)? Agreeing the detail of the questionnaire could take a month and then getting replies out of barristers could easily take another month - so without any preparation or analysis we could already be in November... Suddenly a deadline of 31st December 2012 doesn't seem so far away.
So my answer yesterday was "it's a lot of work". Of course I then said that the best way to get this done was to find a friendly consultant who could do it for him...
Chambers has to comply with the new E&D section of the Code of Conduct. So now is the time to get started.
I will happily repeat my naked plug from my previous post. Mar-aon Consulting can help in producing the new Policy, Action Plan and Procedures - and the questionnaire. Get in contact today for an informal (and free) discussion. Email Peter Blair here.
Your chambers will need to have:
A new Equality Policy
This will need to be fully compliant with the new Rules and that includes sections on parental leave, returning to work, fair access to work, flexible working, etc
That sounds OK - but the general guidance from the BSB suggests that this should be a single document rather than a collection and so someone will need to combine what exists, get it into a single format and ensure that it complies with the Rules, including some of the suggested wording in the Guidance.
You will need to tell chambers about the new policy - but I will deal with communication and training later. At this stage I will just mention the new duty that exists under the Rules for every member of chambers to ensure compliance - not just the Head of Chambers. That i.s likely to require a couple of meetings with all members, and update in writing and then a way of making sure that everyone has seen and understands the new policy.
Sometimes it can be easier to start from scratch than to try to amend an old policy - but either way I think there are probably a couple of days' work in there.
Action Plan
New to this set of Rules is the Action Plan. The Rules require a detailed plan that says how the policy will be implemented, who will perform each task, when they will perform it, and how the managers of chambers will know that each task has been completed.
This will take a while. Every statement in the Policy needs to be backed up here with a statement of who, when, what, and how.
So maybe another couple of days doing this.
Processes and Procedures
Your action plan will lead on to a requirement for new procedures and processes so that the tasks and requirements of the Action Plan are implemented automatically and become part of the operational life of chambers.
I have dismissed in two paragraphs a huge amount of work. Your E&D Policy will say that, for example, all members will have fair access to work. Your Action Plan will then probably address that point by detailing a member or group of members to define 'fair access to work'; the senior clerk (probably) to making sure that fair access is given; the same senior clerk to making sure that the record keeping in chambers is capable of reporting; and then someone will be detailed to produce a periodic report for the management committee to prove that the Policy is being adhered to. So far so good. Your chambers will then need a procedure to ensure that there is a systematic way of recording how work comes into chambers, who does the work and how (or whether) that work is allocated. Another procedure will be required to report to the clerks day to day so that if any patterns are emerging, they have time to do something about it. Ideally there will be some sort of process to automatically collect the statistics, but if not then there will need to be a procedure to gather and analyse them, say, monthly. Finally there will need to be a standardised report than can be completed. The management committee will then need to have a procedure to make sure that comments from their report are fed back into the systems above.
Remember, this is a new set of Rules. It is not enough to say that the documents and procedures are there. The Rules will be audited by looking for evidence that statistics are gathered and that they are discussed and acted upon.
The same sets of steps will be required for each statement in the Policy and each line in the Action Plan.
Depending on the quality of your existing documents, I estimate that this is 7 to 10 days' work. Each process and procedure must be documented and implemented - and then 'trained in'.
Training & Communications
The 'old days' of being compliant by having the documents in place somewhere are over. As I have already mentioned, members of chambers have a personal responsibility to ensure compliance and so they will need to know what is done in chambers. There will need to be a process to report to members and a way for them to get information.
Members of staff need to be trained on their responsibilities. A compliance audit might simply walk into the clerks room and ask one of the clerks - not the Senior Clerk - what they know about fair access to work. They need to know and there needs to be evidence that they have been told. So a set of procedures to make sure that there are regular updates and training sessions and that these sessions are recorded. Chambers only defence might be to be able to say "We do train the clerks regularly and here is the information we tell them, this is how often we tell them, and here are the attendance records showing that the clerks attended recently".
Your chambers will have a number of training sessions and an annual calendar of the activities required throughout the year
There's more...
Statistics
This is another new requirement. Every set of chambers must gather various sets of statistics - on recruitment and on the make-up of chambers, for example. Chambers must gather statistics on its members, using a formula of questions supplied, and analyse and publish these statistics on their web site by the end of December this year. If you have ever tried to get information out of busy people (particularly if, as is likely in this case, they feel that the questions are either stupid or just plain nosey)? Agreeing the detail of the questionnaire could take a month and then getting replies out of barristers could easily take another month - so without any preparation or analysis we could already be in November... Suddenly a deadline of 31st December 2012 doesn't seem so far away.
So my answer yesterday was "it's a lot of work". Of course I then said that the best way to get this done was to find a friendly consultant who could do it for him...
Chambers has to comply with the new E&D section of the Code of Conduct. So now is the time to get started.
I will happily repeat my naked plug from my previous post. Mar-aon Consulting can help in producing the new Policy, Action Plan and Procedures - and the questionnaire. Get in contact today for an informal (and free) discussion. Email Peter Blair here.
Monday, 10 September 2012
Equality & Diversity - are you ready?
It's back to work with a bump. The new Equality & Diversity Rules from the Bar Standards Board are now in force. You can ready the announcement from the BSB here, but in essence there are a number of changes and you and your chambers will need to have a new Equality Policy that conforms, and Action Plan, and processes and procedures to made sure that the new rules are being followed.
That all sounds rather simple. It is, however, imperative that every set of chambers has to ensure that their documentation is in order - and, possibly more importantly, that members and staff know about the changes. Members also need to know about their new responsibilities.
Under the old rules, it was the responsibility of the Head of Chambers to ensure that chambers was compliant. It is not the responsibility of every member of chambers. Yes - you heard that correctly. Every member of chambers, from the most junior to the most senior has a personal responsibility to make sure that their chambers understands the new rules and takes them to heart.
Not only do your documents need to be changed and added to - you have to make sure that every member of chambers and staff understand the rules and is able to speak knowledgeably about them. The BSB is likely to audit chambers' compliance by simply asking some question.
Finally - chambers will have to collect and publish statistics about its membership by the end of this year (and every three years thereafter). These statistics must conform to a standard set by the BSB and must be published to chambers' websites.
Now is about the latest point at which chambers should be addressing the changes.
The sales plug:
Mar-aon can help with the development of the documents you now need, with the planning of training, with the design of the questionnaires you need, and with the publication of the data. Just get in touch.
That all sounds rather simple. It is, however, imperative that every set of chambers has to ensure that their documentation is in order - and, possibly more importantly, that members and staff know about the changes. Members also need to know about their new responsibilities.
Under the old rules, it was the responsibility of the Head of Chambers to ensure that chambers was compliant. It is not the responsibility of every member of chambers. Yes - you heard that correctly. Every member of chambers, from the most junior to the most senior has a personal responsibility to make sure that their chambers understands the new rules and takes them to heart.
Not only do your documents need to be changed and added to - you have to make sure that every member of chambers and staff understand the rules and is able to speak knowledgeably about them. The BSB is likely to audit chambers' compliance by simply asking some question.
Finally - chambers will have to collect and publish statistics about its membership by the end of this year (and every three years thereafter). These statistics must conform to a standard set by the BSB and must be published to chambers' websites.
Now is about the latest point at which chambers should be addressing the changes.
The sales plug:
Mar-aon can help with the development of the documents you now need, with the planning of training, with the design of the questionnaires you need, and with the publication of the data. Just get in touch.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Good News
I have been accused of writing only down-beat stories here and, reading through past posts, I am inclined to agree with my wife that I have been concentrating on things going wrong or done badly (although, in my defence, I do believe that I offer solutions, rather than simply pointing out problems).
So - some good news. Well "Legal Week" is carrying a story about Georgina Blackwell, the beautician who successfully defended her mother in court. Sky news (from whom I borrowed the photograph) have the full story of her case here.
The "Legal Week" story is about BPP offering Georgina a scholarship to do her LLB on their new programme. I think this is a wonderful story - not withstanding the fairly naked PR plant of it in the legal press (after all, the PR staff at BPP have to earn a living too). It is wonderful because someone is being given an opportunity to do something that they possibly thought out of their reach. It is wonderful because some personal good has come out of a selfless act. It is wonderful because justice was seen to be done in the person of this young lady. Finally it is wonderful because she is exactly the sort of person who should be a barrister - committed, concerned, brave, and hard working.
Congratulations Georgina.
The "Legal Week" story is about BPP offering Georgina a scholarship to do her LLB on their new programme. I think this is a wonderful story - not withstanding the fairly naked PR plant of it in the legal press (after all, the PR staff at BPP have to earn a living too). It is wonderful because someone is being given an opportunity to do something that they possibly thought out of their reach. It is wonderful because some personal good has come out of a selfless act. It is wonderful because justice was seen to be done in the person of this young lady. Finally it is wonderful because she is exactly the sort of person who should be a barrister - committed, concerned, brave, and hard working.
Congratulations Georgina.
Monday, 23 November 2009
Just Because You Can...
In a move which seemed to surprise solicitors, the Bar Standards Board voted last week to approve some "fundamental changes" for barristers. The full press release is here but let me summarise:
- Barristers can become managers in LDPs
- Barristers can practice in more than one capacity at a time -i.e. as LDP managers and in independent practice
- Barristers are "discouraged" from being shareholders in LDPs for the moment, until some of the regulations are sorted out
- Barristers can form "Barrister only Practices" (BoPs - isn't that a great acronym!)
- Barristers will be able to work in LLPs and other barrister-only companies
Essentially the BSB is giving barristers some flexibility. Many commentators seem to think that this has given barristers the jump over solicitors whose regulator seems to be caught in an "all change is bad" loop at the moment - see James Dunning's take here.
However - will barristers take up this opportunity. Undoubtedly some will, particularly more junior crime practitioners. As I have said before, I can see the junior Criminal Bar almost disappearing. Other barristers? That seems to be a different matter.
Barristers are the specialists of the legal world and are very bright people. I have little doubt that someone who has made a good career as, say, a barrister specialising in tax law, would be able to join a magic circle law firm. They would probably earn more and would probably have a larger support network. And yet they don't do that. Barristers are self employed because they want to be self employer. If they wanted to be working in a business with other types of lawyers, they have plenty of opportunities now. So I can't see why the new flexibility allowed by the regulator will change that.
I can see barristers using BoPs and I can see that some specialists might want to form a business working up and down "the chain" - working with insurers and solicitors, for example. I suspect, however, they will be in the minority.
Barristers will remain specialists - supplying top-end expertise to the profession and to clients. There is a reason that there are only about 14,000 of them working at the moment. Their specialist knowledge and experience will remain invaluable to other lawyers and to clients - but why would a law firm want to employ such a specialist when they can have the knowledge when required without the overhead of continuous employment (whatever form that employment took).
Just because they can form partnerships with solicitors doesn't mean that they will.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Not Change, but the Consideration of Change
The report makes very interesting reading - and I'm reading it very thoroughly at the moment - but there were a few points raised in the discussion which followed the launch which have got me thinking.
One of the speakers was Tony Williams, the Principal from Jomati, who made a point that I have been trying to make for a while - namely that of the "deliberate decision". It is important for firms and chambers to decide what it is that they want to do, the market they want to work with, and to examine the competition they face now and will face in the future. Not rocket science. The point is to make a deliberate decision about the future of their firm or set of chambers before the market makes one for them. The decision may be to do nothing - that their model works and that those running the firm or chambers believe that they are well placed in the market. That is fine - it is a deliberate decision.
Decision time is here for legal services, there is no more time to prevaricate. Crispin Passmore from the Legal Services Board reminded the attendees that the Bar Standards Board was meeting today (November 19th) to consider the possibility of barristers working in partnerships, which (assuming a "yes" vote) would be a major step towards Alternative Business Structures (ABSs). He also said that the LSB expected to see the first ABSs in mid 2011. This is not very far away and so I repeat - now is the time for barristers and solicitors to seriously consider their business and what they would like it to be in the future.I'm particularly interested in how the changes to the profession will have an impact on the bar. For many sets of chambers, I think that, following thorough analysis, the view might well be that they are more in the B2B (Business to Business) market than the B2C (Business to Consumer), and so their branding and marketing is focussed on professional firms rather than on the "end users" of the justice system. Many sets are specialised or have barristers who work at the very top end of the profession and so are likely to remain in demand after the shake-up. This will not be true, sadly, for every set of criminal chambers. The new large branded law firms which are widely expected to enter the market are likely, as part of an ABS, to try to scoop up public defence work, while the Criminal Prosecution Service are squeezing the bar from the other side. I can almost see the junior end of the junior criminal bar disappearing - working for the new ABSs before starting in independent practice later in life when they can start to work on more specialised areas of criminal law. This will have a huge impact on the bar, on the Inns of Court, on barristers and solicitors and on clients. Exactly what that impact will be - I don't know.
In times of change, the only real fault is to do nothing - or rather to accidentally do nothing. Deliberately doing nothing to change your business model after careful thought is a positive decision. Firms are already starting to try new ways of working. Look at Turcan Connell a law firm based in Edinburgh with offices in London and Guernsey. They have expanded their Private Client work to include Asset Management - they have analysed their market and are providing their clients with the services they need, whether those are legal services or not. In all but name this is an ABS. Firms in England and Wales will, I'm sure, be examining Turcan Connell's success and analysing their business model. It could simply be one of the first of such practices.
Consider the change now - before the market changes around you and your firm or chambers is no longer relevant in this new market.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Barristers, language, belief and knowledge
I listened today to the BBC Radio 4 programme "Between Ourselves" (available until 2nd September on iPlayer) in which Olivia O'Leary interviewed two barristers - Nick Hilliard QC and Dexter Dias QC.
Having worked with barristers for so long, I find it interesting to hear them interviewed and to see how journalists and the world at large perceive them. Both gentlemen spoke well, but that should be no surprise for two people at the top of the advocacy profession. The presenter didn't really address the issue of the public perception of barristers, which is often that that will be tall, posh, white, and have gone to a very good school before Oxbridge. This perception can actually work against the barrister. One barrister friend, who grew up in the East end of London and certainly wasn't educated at Eton, tells the story of a disappointed client who was accused of a serious assault. My friend arrived at the detention centre to interview the client - who was massively disappointed, and said so loudly. "You can't be a proper brief, you ain't posh enough".
So there is a degree of need to allow clients (and particularly clients accused of criminal offences) to feel secure in the choice of barrister - which often involves speaking "properly". Another thing to consider, and one which was pointed out to me early in my career supporting barristers, was that the voice is the barrister's main tool. I listened to Nick Hilliard speaking and noticed that he wasn't particularly posh at all - he did, however, speak with a wonderful precision of word and expression and a clarity of diction which made what he said very clear.
I was struck, throughout the programme, by how committed both barristers seemed to the notion of justice and how little cynicism there was in their statements. This seems to be apparent throughout the profession - barristers, in general, really believe in the system and in their role as an advocate for the client. Nick (who I was lucky enough to work with at Middle Temple) made the point that the job of the defence barrister is to put the best case possible on behalf of the client. Both spoke strongly about their belief that everyone deserved the best possible defence. They articulated the difference between belief and knowledge - they may believe in the guilt of a client, but it is not their place, and must not be their place, to decide that person's fate. They do not know that their client is guilty and, for as long as he or she insists on their innocence, barristers must argue the best case for them in the best possible manner.
Of course the issue of fees was brought up. Nick was confronted with a press report that he had earned over £448k in one year. The first thing to note about this is that, as a self employed barrister, this is turnover and not salary. Barristers have to pay a noticeable share to contribute to the running of chambers and then their own expenses. That notwithstanding, Mr. Hilliard is still paid well for what he does, as he acknowledged. He is however, as is Mr. Dias, one of the best in the business. In those circumstances, and in comparison to partners in firms of solicitors or accountant, I do not thing that his remuneration is unreasonable. Look at the average Profit per Equity Partner (PEP) in the UK top 50 law firms (see here for my analysis). Even if Nick were able to keep his £448k, average PEP at many of those firms is well above that sum - and Nick is far better than an average partner. A better comparison would be a partner at the likes of Linklaters or Freshfields - both of which had average PEP of over £1million - or more than double that of a "fat cat barrister".
This posting was not intended to be a defence of the bar. I was, however, pleasantly reminded of the intelligence and commitment of good barristers - it reminded me of good committee meetings with bright people who had strong moral codes.. I enjoyed hearing both Nick and Dexter speak and felt the system was in good hands.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
The cost of Legal Aid
The Ministry of Justice has just issued a consultation paper on the funding of Legal Aid in England & Wales.
It has some interesting proposals, at first glance:
- To equalise the rates paid for defence and prosecution in legal aid cases;
- Move towards single rates for police station advice
- Simply arrangements - in particular with regard to the Litigators Graduated Fees Scheme
- End payments for criminal file reviews
We must remember that the document from the MoJ is a consultation paper and so all interested parties will be able to have their say.
Let's hope, however, that the "slash and burn" still being visited on many solicitors is not going to be used the the government on the Bar, and that efficiency savings can be found by looking at the whole system and costs in the medium and long terms as well as just within one budget review period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)