*/
One year on from its launch, COMBAR’s James Leabeater offers his views on BARCO.
Barristers need to get used to considering and evaluating credit risk. Since January 2013 barristers and solicitors have been agreeing contracts with each other. For some, not much has changed. Under the BSB’s Standard Contractual Terms, for example, the solicitor is liable to pay barristers’ fees, whether or not the lay client has paid the solicitor. The solicitor takes the credit risk.
But many law firms refuse to accept credit risk. In particular, in January 2013 the Law Society issued a Practice Note proposing amendments to the Standard Contractual Terms which would make the solicitor liable only if and when the lay client had paid the solicitor – a so called “pay when paid” provision.
In order to mitigate the obvious potential difficulties, COMBAR and the City of London Law Society negotiated a set of terms for commercial work. The terms set out four different bases for payment. Basis A is the traditional position: the solicitor is liable whether or not in funds. Basis B is “pay when paid”. Bases C and D both provide for direct payment to the barrister by the lay client – the difference is that D requires a further contract between the lay client and the barrister, whilst for C the solicitor acts as agent for the lay client.
No agreement could be reached about which basis should be the default one – so, if a barrister chooses to contract on the COMBAR/CLLS terms (and there is no obligation to do so) the basis for payment, as well as the amount and timing of fees, must be specifi cally negotiated.
Where the basis for payment is B, C or D, the barrister must consider and evaluate the credit risk posed by the lay client. That can be difficult and time consuming. It may also be impractical where instructions are urgent, or the lay client is abroad.
One potential solution to an unsatisfactory credit risk is for the lay client to pay in advance. But barristers cannot take money on account.
That is where BARCO’s escrow account service comes into play. The lay client lodges funds to be held in accordance with agreed terms, and BARCO disperses funds in accordance with those terms until the case concludes, for a fee of about 2% of earned fees with a cap of £250 per transaction.
In the event of a dispute, the funds are frozen pending resolution of the dispute. The lay client has the security of knowing that BARCO is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman. All funds held within BARCO are segregated from all other funds associated with the Company and they are insured.
For those doing international work, BARCO also offers real advantages. If you are instructed by lawyers or clients abroad, and things go wrong, it may be difficult to recover your fees whatever the terms of your agreement. Using BARCO can give you the assurance that you will be paid; and it can give your client the assurance that cash paid on account will be safe, and returned, with interest, in the event that the sum paid on account exceeds the fees chargeable.
For cases where solicitors cannot or will not take fees on account, BARCO provides a useful service to limit barristers’ credit risk. And in this new contractual world, we all need to learn to think about credit risk every time we accept instructions.
But many law firms refuse to accept credit risk. In particular, in January 2013 the Law Society issued a Practice Note proposing amendments to the Standard Contractual Terms which would make the solicitor liable only if and when the lay client had paid the solicitor – a so called “pay when paid” provision.
In order to mitigate the obvious potential difficulties, COMBAR and the City of London Law Society negotiated a set of terms for commercial work. The terms set out four different bases for payment. Basis A is the traditional position: the solicitor is liable whether or not in funds. Basis B is “pay when paid”. Bases C and D both provide for direct payment to the barrister by the lay client – the difference is that D requires a further contract between the lay client and the barrister, whilst for C the solicitor acts as agent for the lay client.
No agreement could be reached about which basis should be the default one – so, if a barrister chooses to contract on the COMBAR/CLLS terms (and there is no obligation to do so) the basis for payment, as well as the amount and timing of fees, must be specifi cally negotiated.
Where the basis for payment is B, C or D, the barrister must consider and evaluate the credit risk posed by the lay client. That can be difficult and time consuming. It may also be impractical where instructions are urgent, or the lay client is abroad.
One potential solution to an unsatisfactory credit risk is for the lay client to pay in advance. But barristers cannot take money on account.
That is where BARCO’s escrow account service comes into play. The lay client lodges funds to be held in accordance with agreed terms, and BARCO disperses funds in accordance with those terms until the case concludes, for a fee of about 2% of earned fees with a cap of £250 per transaction.
In the event of a dispute, the funds are frozen pending resolution of the dispute. The lay client has the security of knowing that BARCO is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman. All funds held within BARCO are segregated from all other funds associated with the Company and they are insured.
For those doing international work, BARCO also offers real advantages. If you are instructed by lawyers or clients abroad, and things go wrong, it may be difficult to recover your fees whatever the terms of your agreement. Using BARCO can give you the assurance that you will be paid; and it can give your client the assurance that cash paid on account will be safe, and returned, with interest, in the event that the sum paid on account exceeds the fees chargeable.
For cases where solicitors cannot or will not take fees on account, BARCO provides a useful service to limit barristers’ credit risk. And in this new contractual world, we all need to learn to think about credit risk every time we accept instructions.
One year on from its launch, COMBAR’s James Leabeater offers his views on BARCO.
Barristers need to get used to considering and evaluating credit risk. Since January 2013 barristers and solicitors have been agreeing contracts with each other. For some, not much has changed. Under the BSB’s Standard Contractual Terms, for example, the solicitor is liable to pay barristers’ fees, whether or not the lay client has paid the solicitor. The solicitor takes the credit risk.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
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.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
