*/
DCTs such as TripAdvisor or MoneySuperMarket allow consumers to search for providers based on key criteria and allow providers to promote their services. DCTs are not new to the Bar – the Bar Council’s Direct Access Portal is a long-standing DCT, for example.
Many DCTs allow consumers to search for providers by location, price, service offered, availability and reviews – as do some law-focused DCTs. The process of barrister selection by consumers* using DCTs is often, therefore, surprisingly similar to the way they choose between other service providers. However, we appreciate that clients of barristers cannot judge the quality of service offered in the same way they can judge the quality of a hotel room.
We are asking barristers, referral Bar and direct access alike, to sign up to one (or more) of our pilot DCTs, and share with us their experiences of using them. Your insights will contribute to the evaluation of our pilot.
It’s worth noting that not all DCTs offer client reviews – the Direct Access Portal is a good example of a DCT that doesn’t. Some DCTs focus on star ratings, or currently include reviews towards the end of the barrister selection process.
When responding to reviews, you must be aware of the obligations placed on you by the BSB Handbook. Responding to a review is your opportunity to clarify, correct and learn more about how your clients perceive the service you deliver. We suggest you politely acknowledge and thank the client for their feedback. And, if the feedback is critical, we suggest you set out how you will address the issue or learn from the feedback. Adopting this approach allows you to reassure existing and future clients that you value their views, and take their experiences seriously.
You are permitted to respond to an online review so long as you do not disclosure confidential or privileged information.
If a client review itself includes confidential or privileged information, any public response you provide should not reveal any information beyond that which the client has already revealed. If you are unsure about what to say in response, you may wish to simply acknowledge the review and contact the client privately about their feedback.
If you think that an online review about you or your practice is not from a genuine current or former client, you could contact the relevant DCT and follow their complaints procedures.
If you believe an online review is defamatory you can, of course, pursue legal action. However, you might also consider whether you can achieve a better outcome with a different approach. Potential clients may be deterred from instructing you if they feel you have been heavy-handed with a dissatisfied client. It may be more beneficial to encourage other clients to leave reviews on the same website, to give potential clients a more balanced picture.
At this stage, we have an open mind. Once we’ve gathered relevant evidence, and evaluated our findings, we will decide on our next steps.
Insights gathered from the barristers and chambers who take part in our pilot will directly influence our final conclusions – so why not get involved?
To learn more about the BSB’s DCT pilot, see the BSB website here or email us at dctpilot@barstandardsboard.org.uk.
Rupika Madhura is the Bar Standards Board’s Head of Regulation Policy and Research.
Richard Parnham is a Policy Manager at the Bar Standards Board.
DCTs such as TripAdvisor or MoneySuperMarket allow consumers to search for providers based on key criteria and allow providers to promote their services. DCTs are not new to the Bar – the Bar Council’s Direct Access Portal is a long-standing DCT, for example.
Many DCTs allow consumers to search for providers by location, price, service offered, availability and reviews – as do some law-focused DCTs. The process of barrister selection by consumers* using DCTs is often, therefore, surprisingly similar to the way they choose between other service providers. However, we appreciate that clients of barristers cannot judge the quality of service offered in the same way they can judge the quality of a hotel room.
We are asking barristers, referral Bar and direct access alike, to sign up to one (or more) of our pilot DCTs, and share with us their experiences of using them. Your insights will contribute to the evaluation of our pilot.
It’s worth noting that not all DCTs offer client reviews – the Direct Access Portal is a good example of a DCT that doesn’t. Some DCTs focus on star ratings, or currently include reviews towards the end of the barrister selection process.
When responding to reviews, you must be aware of the obligations placed on you by the BSB Handbook. Responding to a review is your opportunity to clarify, correct and learn more about how your clients perceive the service you deliver. We suggest you politely acknowledge and thank the client for their feedback. And, if the feedback is critical, we suggest you set out how you will address the issue or learn from the feedback. Adopting this approach allows you to reassure existing and future clients that you value their views, and take their experiences seriously.
You are permitted to respond to an online review so long as you do not disclosure confidential or privileged information.
If a client review itself includes confidential or privileged information, any public response you provide should not reveal any information beyond that which the client has already revealed. If you are unsure about what to say in response, you may wish to simply acknowledge the review and contact the client privately about their feedback.
If you think that an online review about you or your practice is not from a genuine current or former client, you could contact the relevant DCT and follow their complaints procedures.
If you believe an online review is defamatory you can, of course, pursue legal action. However, you might also consider whether you can achieve a better outcome with a different approach. Potential clients may be deterred from instructing you if they feel you have been heavy-handed with a dissatisfied client. It may be more beneficial to encourage other clients to leave reviews on the same website, to give potential clients a more balanced picture.
At this stage, we have an open mind. Once we’ve gathered relevant evidence, and evaluated our findings, we will decide on our next steps.
Insights gathered from the barristers and chambers who take part in our pilot will directly influence our final conclusions – so why not get involved?
To learn more about the BSB’s DCT pilot, see the BSB website here or email us at dctpilot@barstandardsboard.org.uk.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
With gender earnings inequality at the Bar getting worse, not better, Judith Ayling KC discusses concrete solutions and collective action – including steps taken by the Personal Injuries Bar Association
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
