Profession

Amid reports that the Revenue will soon start a concerted campaign targeting the tax affairs of self-employed barristers, Ashley Hayman considers what the Revenue will be looking for.  

Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in 2008, Dave Hartnett, Acting Chairman of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs  (“the Revenue”), reported that there had been 57 barristers who were in the “hidden economy” and not paying any tax at all. Maybe such cases were deliberate; maybe they were due to astonishing oversight. But if you happen to be in the hidden economy you need to take urgent advice about putting your affairs in order before the Revenue launch a tax enquiry into you. Even the vast majority who do submit accounts and tax returns to the Revenue are not immune from challenge. The Revenue have recently shown a close interest in the tax affairs of a number of respectable professionals (including, for example, doctors and vets), and there is a specialist team at the Euston Tower tax office charged with enquiring into the affairs of barristers. 

The Bar Council has been running a joint roadshow with the BSB to initiate a debate on the business implications and opportunities presented by the Legal Services Act 2007 and the BSB’s rule changes. Paul Mosson and Ariel Ricci report back.  

On 20 November 2009 the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”) announced decisions that have the potential to change the face of the Bar as we know it. While the BSB waits for these proposed changes to be approved by the Legal Services Board (“LSB”), the Bar Council put into motion a plan of action to begin educating and obtaining feedback from the profession. Last December, the Circuit Leaders, together with the Chairman of the Bar, Nick Green QC, and the BSB began scheduling a national roadshow to initiate a debate about how the profession can not only survive, but grow stronger and retain its unique attributes. 

New diversity statistics show that of 624 lawyers applying for 36 posts as fee paid employment tribunal judges between April and September 2009, 40 per cent of applicants and 54 per cent of those selected were women, while 13 per cent of applicants and 6 per cent of those selected were from a BME background. Solicitors made up 72 per cent of applicants and three-quarters of appointees, and disabled people accounted for six per cent of applicants and appointees.  

What do candidates sitting the Crown Court Recordership Competition think of the qualifying tests? How to you assess whether someone will be a good Recorder? How do you conduct the first cull in a process where there have been 1,000 applicants for only 128 positions?  

The Judicial Appointments Commission (“JAC”), facing this problem, has since 2008 required candidates in the Crown Court recordership competition to sit a test in which he or she gives their decisions and reasons in respect of various matters which arise in a trial in which they apply a given, fictional body of law. 

Many of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations will have a direct impact on the Bar’s way of life, warns Stuart Sime 

Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (“the Review”) was published on 14 January 2010. It will have profound effects on the conduct of litigation and the remuneration of lawyers. Without doubt it is the most important report in the area of civil law since Lord Woolf’s report on Access to Justice in 1996. Like the best reports in recent years (Lord Neuberger’s report on Entry to the Bar, 2007, is another example), Sir Rupert recognises that systemic problems cannot be cured by single big point remedies. 

How have practitioners responded to the Final Report? Counsel rounds up some of the comments made on the NLJ Jackson webcast 

David Greene 

NLJ Consultant Editor & head of the litigation & dispute resolution team at Edwin Coe LLP. NLJ Jackson webcast participant 

“A lot of solicitors get their business from referral fees, agencies and management companies. If they didn’t get that business you would probably find that they would have to go out and advertise and spend the money in that way, so I don’t think it is a straight game in terms of referral fees. 

Catherine Piercy wonders whether the advocacy training provided by the BVC and the Inns will stand up in court.  

When I was born, no barrister was taught advocacy and most people—I am told—did not believe that it could be done. I am very much the product of the “new world”, having undergone the Bar Vocational Course (“BVC”), my Inn’s advocacy training during my BVC year, and most recently the pupillage course. Is it true that my years as a practitioner—should I be fortunate enough to get a tenancy—will be spent unlearning everything I have previously been taught? 

Simon Chadwick highlights the issues for chambers to consider when recruiting a chief executive.  

There are 690 chambers in the UK. Of those 67 have a serving chief executive or a practice director. Due, mainly, to the simple business structure of a typical barristers’ set, the job titles differ. However both roles show a degree of overlap and in some cases the responsibilities are identical. 

Freya Newbery explains the issues surrounding career breaks for barristers and reports on the recent Bar Council “Managing Career Breaks” seminar.  

As part of its commitment to retaining women in self-employed practice, the Bar Council hosted an immensely practical half-day seminar, “Managing Career Breaks”, on 23 October 2009. The seminar provided practical guidance to both barristers beginning a break or planning to return to practice following maternity leave or a career break, and those in chambers—such as equal opportunity officers, clerks and practice managers—responsible for managing career breaks and helping returners to re-build their practices. 

Following the difficulties experienced by Cardiff Law School’s “Quality Assurance for Advocates” pilot programme what are the options available for future monitoring schemes, asks David Wurtzel.  

One of the aspects of being self-employed is that there is no one to appraise or quality assure you. The prospect that this might change for the Bar arose three and a half years ago when Lord Carter recommended, “A proportionate system of quality monitoring based on the principles of peer review and a rounded appraisal and should be developed for all advocates working in the criminal, civil and family courts”—and in the first instance, for publicly funded criminal advocates. This was sometimes referred to as the “Carter trade-off”: practitioners would receive more money and in return would institute quality assurance (“QA”). The money was indeed forthcoming but QA was not. Ironically, just when the government is likely to renege on most of the rise in fees, criminal court advocates finally do face the development of a QA programme. The details are very far from decided.