*/
Have entities taken off as expected at the Bar? Scott Leonard and Michael Stacey consider the opportunities for practitioners and issues for chambers considering how to accommodate these new business models
Much has been written about the opportunities presented to the Bar by entity regulation. When the Bar Standards Board (BSB) launched entity regulation in January 2015, it predicted over 400 entities would be authorised in the first year.
Indeed, 30 applicants for prospective BSB-regulated entities were received within five days of the barristers’ regulator opening its doors to applications. However, at the time of writing, just 49 entities have been authorised by the BSB, 41 of which are single person entities – ie having one individual registered as manager, head of legal practice and head of finance and administration.
Although the available statistics suggest that increasing numbers of barristers are working in solicitors’ firms, this group still numbers in the hundreds, and less than 5% of all practising barristers (Barristers’ Working Lives: a second biennial survey of the Bar, 2013). The increase in barristers employed in solicitors’ firms appears to reflect a shift among employed barristers from employment in the public sector (including the CPS) to employment in the private sector. The numbers at the self-employed Bar remain broadly static at around 80% of the total (BSB Practising Barrister Statistics). So why haven’t BSB-regulated entities taken off as expected, and what are the opportunities for practitioners?
Wider context
The introduction of entity regulation by the BSB took place against the backdrop of wider changes in the legal services market, driven in part by the Legal Services Act. When the draft Legal Services Bill was published nearly ten years ago, alternative business structures (ABS) were said by the government to be a means of increasing competition and choice for the consumer, with different types of lawyers and non-lawyers working together on an equal footing, with the benefit of external investment.
ABSs became a reality four years ago, and there are now over 500 ABSs licensed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and other regulators. These include new market entrants, such as accountants, and existing law firms, including a number of top 50 solicitors’ firms by revenue.
The BSB’s stated policy objective in introducing entity regulation was to provide opportunities for the market to develop, enabling barristers to innovate in ways that are compatible with the regulatory objectives, provided the associated risks are managed effectively and proportionately.
While the legal market has undoubtedly changed over the last ten years, with increased pressure on pricing, a significant reduction in public funding and greater use of technology, one might be forgiven for thinking that the revolution has passed the Bar by.
Limited scope
One of the possible explanations for the low take-up of BSB entity regulation is the limited scope of the current offering:
In many ways the BSB’s approach is understandable: advocacy and litigation by their nature are activities that cannot easily be commoditised, requiring individual lawyers to discharge duties to the court as well as the client.
The BSB’s offering may suit some niche advocacy practices (including those that are solicitor led) as being both more cost effective than SRA entity regulation and providing a more appropriate regulatory regime. However, solicitor-advocates will still be subject to individual regulation by the SRA unless they convert.
Alternative business structures
The BSB does have plans to extend its approach to allow non-lawyer ownership and management. Its application to the Legal Services Board for designation as a licensing authority for ABSs was approved in March, and the BSB plans to begin regulating ABSs from October 2016. The process, which has already been delayed, requires various statutory instruments to be made before it can be finalised. The BSB forecasted 20 applications for ABS authorisation in its first year as a licensing authority, suggesting they will have a minimal impact.
Single person entities
Much of the initial take-up of entity regulation has been by individual barristers wishing to use a company as a vehicle for self-employed practice, rather than the establishment of incorporated chambers to rival solicitors’ firms.
The primary attraction of this approach was expected to be the potential for tax savings. However, the changes to the taxation of dividends which came into effect in April 2016 are likely to make any tax benefits marginal for single member entities.
Although non-lawyer participation in BSB-regulated entities is not currently permitted, in future it may be that two member companies emerge in which an individual barrister’s spouse or civil partner has a significant interest. This would allow the distribution of the company’s income to be spread across the two individuals concerned, which may produce a greater benefit from a tax point of view.
Incorporated chambers
A BSB press release on entity regulation referred to ‘barristers and other advocacy focused lawyers’ being able ‘to pool together resources and share the risks of investing in their own business’.
In principle a corporate structure could facilitate the development of a brand and enable external finance to be secured to invest in development.
However, a significant disadvantage compared with the traditional chambers model is the position in relation to conflicts. The self-employed model enables barristers to maintain sufficient independence to be able to appear on opposite sides of the same case, and many will not want to sacrifice that independence whatever the perceived advantages of a corporate structure.
Practical issues for chambers
The use of single person entities will not fundamentally alter the traditional chambers model: members are simply choosing to conduct their existing practice through a different legal structure. Multi-person entities are likely to prove more controversial.
While a wholesale shift towards incorporated chambers appears unlikely, it may be that a mixed economy develops, with single and multi-person entities co-existing with the traditional chambers model. This raises a host of issues for chambers concerning whether, and how, they are willing to accommodate entities:
In addition, various practical matters need to be addressed where services are being offered through an entity: chambers software may need to be updated, contractual terms revised and arrangements put in place to ensure it is clear to third parties that services are being provided through the entity.
At present, it is compulsory for single member BSB-regulated entities to obtain insurance through Bar Mutual, although multi-person entities can obtain cover on the open market.
Innovation v complication
Although BSB entity regulation may provide opportunities for some to innovate, it also brings complications both for individual barristers and for existing chambers which some may feel outweigh any benefits. If take-up to date is anything to go by, the traditional chambers model is likely to endure for many years to come.
Contributors Scott Leonard and Michael Stacey are contributors to John Gould’s The Law of Legal Services
Indeed, 30 applicants for prospective BSB-regulated entities were received within five days of the barristers’ regulator opening its doors to applications. However, at the time of writing, just 49 entities have been authorised by the BSB, 41 of which are single person entities – ie having one individual registered as manager, head of legal practice and head of finance and administration.
Although the available statistics suggest that increasing numbers of barristers are working in solicitors’ firms, this group still numbers in the hundreds, and less than 5% of all practising barristers (Barristers’ Working Lives: a second biennial survey of the Bar, 2013). The increase in barristers employed in solicitors’ firms appears to reflect a shift among employed barristers from employment in the public sector (including the CPS) to employment in the private sector. The numbers at the self-employed Bar remain broadly static at around 80% of the total (BSB Practising Barrister Statistics). So why haven’t BSB-regulated entities taken off as expected, and what are the opportunities for practitioners?
Wider context
The introduction of entity regulation by the BSB took place against the backdrop of wider changes in the legal services market, driven in part by the Legal Services Act. When the draft Legal Services Bill was published nearly ten years ago, alternative business structures (ABS) were said by the government to be a means of increasing competition and choice for the consumer, with different types of lawyers and non-lawyers working together on an equal footing, with the benefit of external investment.
ABSs became a reality four years ago, and there are now over 500 ABSs licensed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and other regulators. These include new market entrants, such as accountants, and existing law firms, including a number of top 50 solicitors’ firms by revenue.
The BSB’s stated policy objective in introducing entity regulation was to provide opportunities for the market to develop, enabling barristers to innovate in ways that are compatible with the regulatory objectives, provided the associated risks are managed effectively and proportionately.
While the legal market has undoubtedly changed over the last ten years, with increased pressure on pricing, a significant reduction in public funding and greater use of technology, one might be forgiven for thinking that the revolution has passed the Bar by.
Limited scope
One of the possible explanations for the low take-up of BSB entity regulation is the limited scope of the current offering:
In many ways the BSB’s approach is understandable: advocacy and litigation by their nature are activities that cannot easily be commoditised, requiring individual lawyers to discharge duties to the court as well as the client.
The BSB’s offering may suit some niche advocacy practices (including those that are solicitor led) as being both more cost effective than SRA entity regulation and providing a more appropriate regulatory regime. However, solicitor-advocates will still be subject to individual regulation by the SRA unless they convert.
Alternative business structures
The BSB does have plans to extend its approach to allow non-lawyer ownership and management. Its application to the Legal Services Board for designation as a licensing authority for ABSs was approved in March, and the BSB plans to begin regulating ABSs from October 2016. The process, which has already been delayed, requires various statutory instruments to be made before it can be finalised. The BSB forecasted 20 applications for ABS authorisation in its first year as a licensing authority, suggesting they will have a minimal impact.
Single person entities
Much of the initial take-up of entity regulation has been by individual barristers wishing to use a company as a vehicle for self-employed practice, rather than the establishment of incorporated chambers to rival solicitors’ firms.
The primary attraction of this approach was expected to be the potential for tax savings. However, the changes to the taxation of dividends which came into effect in April 2016 are likely to make any tax benefits marginal for single member entities.
Although non-lawyer participation in BSB-regulated entities is not currently permitted, in future it may be that two member companies emerge in which an individual barrister’s spouse or civil partner has a significant interest. This would allow the distribution of the company’s income to be spread across the two individuals concerned, which may produce a greater benefit from a tax point of view.
Incorporated chambers
A BSB press release on entity regulation referred to ‘barristers and other advocacy focused lawyers’ being able ‘to pool together resources and share the risks of investing in their own business’.
In principle a corporate structure could facilitate the development of a brand and enable external finance to be secured to invest in development.
However, a significant disadvantage compared with the traditional chambers model is the position in relation to conflicts. The self-employed model enables barristers to maintain sufficient independence to be able to appear on opposite sides of the same case, and many will not want to sacrifice that independence whatever the perceived advantages of a corporate structure.
Practical issues for chambers
The use of single person entities will not fundamentally alter the traditional chambers model: members are simply choosing to conduct their existing practice through a different legal structure. Multi-person entities are likely to prove more controversial.
While a wholesale shift towards incorporated chambers appears unlikely, it may be that a mixed economy develops, with single and multi-person entities co-existing with the traditional chambers model. This raises a host of issues for chambers concerning whether, and how, they are willing to accommodate entities:
In addition, various practical matters need to be addressed where services are being offered through an entity: chambers software may need to be updated, contractual terms revised and arrangements put in place to ensure it is clear to third parties that services are being provided through the entity.
At present, it is compulsory for single member BSB-regulated entities to obtain insurance through Bar Mutual, although multi-person entities can obtain cover on the open market.
Innovation v complication
Although BSB entity regulation may provide opportunities for some to innovate, it also brings complications both for individual barristers and for existing chambers which some may feel outweigh any benefits. If take-up to date is anything to go by, the traditional chambers model is likely to endure for many years to come.
Contributors Scott Leonard and Michael Stacey are contributors to John Gould’s The Law of Legal Services
Have entities taken off as expected at the Bar? Scott Leonard and Michael Stacey consider the opportunities for practitioners and issues for chambers considering how to accommodate these new business models
Much has been written about the opportunities presented to the Bar by entity regulation. When the Bar Standards Board (BSB) launched entity regulation in January 2015, it predicted over 400 entities would be authorised in the first year.
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Leading legal DNA, drug, and alcohol testing provider AlphaBiolabs has made its first Giving Back charity draw of 2024 with Andrew Sibson, a Legal Officer at Leeds City Council, being chosen as its first winner
Discover Lloyd’s unique approach to financial planning and experience working with barristers
Trust Delaunay Wealth to stand by your side amid the uncertainties ahead, writes Lloyd French
Lighting fires that cast unfairness into the shadows, creating history at home and abroad, and being comfortable with who you are – the remarkable criminal and international human rights barrister Kirsty Brimelow KC
No longer an exclusive boys’ club, but still some way to go. To mark International Women's Day, Millie Rai describes what it’s like being a young female barrister at the Commercial Chancery Bar
Marking International Women's Day, Will Tyler KC interviews two female silks at the helm of two huge specialist Bar associations about their lives and careers – finding a common theme both to their success and the challenges facing their respective Bars
If we fail to nurture women’s collective talent, half the population of this country will not be properly represented – from the junior Criminal Bar right up to the senior Judiciary. We cannot let all the hard work be undone, says Tana Adkin KC on International Women's Day
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession