*/
The BSB’s current consultation on entity regulation is asking fundamental questions about how barristers will work in the future, and how they should be regulated, writes Samuel Condry.
The BSB proposes that it is in the public interest to continue to have a specialist regulator of advocacy and related services; and that, given its experience and expertise as a regulator in this field, it is well placed to regulate entities as well as individuals. It recognises that the future for advocacy services may lie in business entities, as well as in the referral Bar.
More importantly, the consultation is about barristers’ permissions to practise. Barristers can already work in businesses as employees and as managers of law firms and recognised bodies (LDPs) and the BSB has already decided in principle to allow barristers to work in Barrister Only Entities (BOEs) – partnerships or limited companies. The question is whether the remaining restrictions on conducting litigation should be removed so that barristers can provide a “one stop shop” service, direct to lay clients. The majority of barristers recently surveyed by the BSB wanted more direct access.
New business structures may well be an opportunity for the Bar to become more competitive. However, barristers, clerks, and all those involved in the supply of advocacy services, will need to make some important judgement calls – whether clients will need barristers to conduct litigation as well as doing advocacy and giving advice, how clients can be expected to pay for these services, and how they can manage conflicts and preserve the principles of non-discrimination and the cab-rank rule.
A key question is how clients should pay for services and receive money from court awards and settlements, if barristers are permitted to conduct litigation, but are not permitted to hold client money. The current regulatory regime for holding client money, overseen by the SRA, is enormously costly and complex and the BSB will not be able to replicate it. Instead, the BSB is developing an alternative proposal, which will involve money held in a “custodian” arrangement, allowing more streamlined, cheaper regulation.
Whilst it is not the BSB’s role to find commercially viable solutions to the enormous pressures facing today’s barristers, it is the role of the regulator to find a solution which can work with any commercial plans that barristers may have. This is partly why the BSB commissioned a YouGov survey earlier this year, to find out the future business intentions of barristers and clerks. The BSB will continue to work closely with the Bar Council to ensure entity regulation would be both workable and desirable for the Bar, and for those who use its services. The BSB’s autumn “roadshow” events will be a chance for barristers and their colleagues to find out more about entity regulation whilst feeding back their views.
For more information visit www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/consultations/OpenConsultations/regulatingentities/
Samuel Condry, Senior Policy Officer, Bar Standard Board
The BSB proposes that it is in the public interest to continue to have a specialist regulator of advocacy and related services; and that, given its experience and expertise as a regulator in this field, it is well placed to regulate entities as well as individuals. It recognises that the future for advocacy services may lie in business entities, as well as in the referral Bar.
More importantly, the consultation is about barristers’ permissions to practise. Barristers can already work in businesses as employees and as managers of law firms and recognised bodies (LDPs) and the BSB has already decided in principle to allow barristers to work in Barrister Only Entities (BOEs) – partnerships or limited companies. The question is whether the remaining restrictions on conducting litigation should be removed so that barristers can provide a “one stop shop” service, direct to lay clients. The majority of barristers recently surveyed by the BSB wanted more direct access.
New business structures may well be an opportunity for the Bar to become more competitive. However, barristers, clerks, and all those involved in the supply of advocacy services, will need to make some important judgement calls – whether clients will need barristers to conduct litigation as well as doing advocacy and giving advice, how clients can be expected to pay for these services, and how they can manage conflicts and preserve the principles of non-discrimination and the cab-rank rule.
A key question is how clients should pay for services and receive money from court awards and settlements, if barristers are permitted to conduct litigation, but are not permitted to hold client money. The current regulatory regime for holding client money, overseen by the SRA, is enormously costly and complex and the BSB will not be able to replicate it. Instead, the BSB is developing an alternative proposal, which will involve money held in a “custodian” arrangement, allowing more streamlined, cheaper regulation.
Whilst it is not the BSB’s role to find commercially viable solutions to the enormous pressures facing today’s barristers, it is the role of the regulator to find a solution which can work with any commercial plans that barristers may have. This is partly why the BSB commissioned a YouGov survey earlier this year, to find out the future business intentions of barristers and clerks. The BSB will continue to work closely with the Bar Council to ensure entity regulation would be both workable and desirable for the Bar, and for those who use its services. The BSB’s autumn “roadshow” events will be a chance for barristers and their colleagues to find out more about entity regulation whilst feeding back their views.
For more information visit www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/consultations/OpenConsultations/regulatingentities/
Samuel Condry, Senior Policy Officer, Bar Standard Board
The BSB’s current consultation on entity regulation is asking fundamental questions about how barristers will work in the future, and how they should be regulated, writes Samuel Condry.
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
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
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
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
