Legal Week has set out to identify the 16 most highly-rated barristers practising at the Commercial Bar in the eyes of the people who instruct them.

This Spotlight on the Bar survey of leading silks and junior barristers has been created by canvassing the opinion of the heads of litigation at the top 50 UK law firms by turnover.

Each department was asked to identify the barristers they rate most highly for the work done for their department and explain why.

The only barristers that were excluded in advance from the remit of this list are Jonathan Sumption QC, Anthony Grabiner QC and Gordon Pollock QC, who are already almost universally recognised as clear leaders in general commercial litigation at the Bar.

The results of this survey may not come as a surprise to all. However, what became surprisingly clear in the process of collating this information is the vast number and range of barristers who the UK's leading litigators rate highly.

There was, as may be expected in light of their more limited numbers, significant repetition of the QCs named as those who litigators believe are at the top or rising to the top of their profession.

It also became clear that there is an understanding among litigators that there is a large second tier of QCs beneath those that are heralded to be at the top of the pile.

However, among the juniors there was far less repetition of the same names. While those juniors named in this survey are the most highly recommended by the highest number of departments, there is, it has emerged, a surprising absence of overlap in some of the juniors that the top litigators name enthusiastically as "absolute stars".

The barristers who have come out on top in this survey all share very similar characteristics and reveal the qualities that litigators are looking for in the profession as a whole.

What makes a barrister stand out in litigators' eyes are the ability to give commercial and practical advice, demonstrate to clients that they are 'on their side'; communicate the issues in the case to the client and the court, pick up on the issues in the case and address them in a creative, determined and yet sensible way. Barristers must also have the ability to work as part of a team and 'muck in' when preparing for hearings and trials. They must also be quick on their feet in court.

Gone are the days when it was possible to instruct commercially unenlightened and cost-oblivious QCs. In these post-Woolf days of cost awareness and savvy commercial clients, it appears that those barristers that stand out above the rest must demonstrate more than just an exceptional knowledge of the law.

Barbara Dohmann QC

Name: Barbara Dohmann QC
Chambers: Blackstone Chambers
Practice area: General commercial law

Barbara Dohmann is recognised as being at the top of her profession, with a long-established and somewhat fearsome reputation.

Called to the Bar in 1971, Dohmann took silk in 1987 and was appointed a Recorder just three years later, in 1990.

Most recently, reflecting further the public recognition of Dohmann's pre-eminence in her field, she was appointed as Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court, Queen's Bench and Chancery Division, where she sat from 1994 to 2002.

Her impressive repertoire of practice areas includes banking and reinsurance, commercial arbitration, commercial fraud, entertainment and media law, financial services and professional negligence work.

The countless reported and high-profile banking and general commercial cases that Dohmann has been instructed on include the Court of Appeal case of Brown & anr v Bennett & ors [1998] in which Dohmann successfully acted for the respondents before Lord Justices Morritt, Aldous and Hutchison.

Dohmann also acted for the defendant in the case of the US Government v British American Tobacco (BAT) in the High Court, followed by the Court of Appeal, in June 2004, successfully defending a claim for waiver of privilege over BAT documents.

In general terms, litigators describe Dohmann as clever, incisive and a very hard worker with a great mind.

In her preparation for trial, Dohmann is, litigators say, somewhat of a perfectionist. She is uncom-promising in her demands of her instructing solicitors. This, some litigators say, is a trait that does not always make her as 'comfortable' to work with as some barristers.

Nonetheless, Dohmann's dogged approach is recognised as being a significant contributing factor to her success in court and is therefore welcomed. As one solicitor comments: "She is quite demanding of her solicitors, but that is fair enough."

Dohmann is renowned for her clear, robust advice and has a very direct and honest approach that appeals to clients.

Referred to by some litigators in nervous tones as 'Barbara Doberman', Dohmann is described as a "ferocious" advocate and is singularly reported to be "a force to be reckoned with" in court and a "forceful and fearless" cross-examiner.

Mark Howard QC

Name: Mark Howard QC
Chambers: Brick Court Chambers
Practice area: General commercial law

Mark Howard is widely viewed by litigators as being one of Brick Court Chambers and the Bar in general's rising stars.

Called to the Bar in 1980, Howard started his career at 1 Hare Court, before moving to Brick Court in 1986. Just 10 years later, in 1996, Howard took silk.

However, Howard's practice areas are not typical of a strong general commercial practice at this magic circle chambers, and include banking, insurance, shipping, professional negligence and energy work.

In the last few years, Howard has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, such as the 2000 Court of Appeal case, Banco Santander v Banque Paribas, before Lord Justices Morritt, Waller and Mummery.

In 2003, Howard acted as leader for the defence in BP plc v GE Frankona Reinsurance Limited, opposing Jonathan Sumption QC, who was leader for the claimant.

Litigators speak of Howard in glowing terms. "He is going to be the next superstar", is the comment that encapsulates the general perception among litigators that Howard is destined to rise up to the same tier as Grabiner, Sumption and Pollock.

Howard is given an 'all-round seal of approval' by litigators, with one reporting that he is "approachable, incisive, a good advocate and very good with clients".

Howard is described as being "excellent on his feet": a claim corroborated by the anecdotal evidence of one top litigator who, after witnessing Howard's performance for the other side in a recent case, now has Howard on a short list to instruct him at the next opportunity.

There is some suggestion that Howard can appear to have a "cold exterior" at first encounter.

However, one litigator who recently worked closely with Howard on a six-month case says that he quickly "thawed", that he worked well as a member of the team, and that he found him a pleasure to work with and a "cutting wit".

David Pannick QC

Name: David Pannick QC
Chambers: Blackstone Chambers
Practice area: Public law, human rights law

David Pannick was called to the Bar in 1979 and took silk in 1992.

His practice area includes not only public and human rights law – for which he is best known – but also broadcasting and media law, employment and discrimination law, sports law and EC law.

He is, not surprisingly, well-known among litigators, whether they have instructed him directly or recognise him by the glowing reputation that now widely precedes him as an established leader at the Bar.

By virtue of the nature of his practice area and his seniority, cases in which he is instructed are almost invariably high profile. In November 2003, Pannick acted for the Queen in the High Court, obtaining an injunction to restrain the Daily Mail from reporting any further information obtained by a reporter posing as a footman in Buckingham Palace. He also acted in February 2004 for Greg Rusedski in Montreal in connection with the drug-taking allegations he was later cleared of.

No sooner are litigators asked to comment on Pannick's skill as an advocate and a lawyer than the accolades start rolling in.

He is cited as the "number one barrister" for judicial review.

Of his legal knowledge and ability there is ebullient praise. Comments such as "he is a very clever man: pre-eminent in the judicial review field" and "a very effective lawyer and a good advocate", reflect a consensus of opinion in the profession.

Other litigators are yet more effusive, with one commenting: "He is the future lord chief justice. In his area, he stands out almost without peer."

Pannick is also held by one solicitor to be "in the class of Grabiner and Sumption for administrative law".

Litigators comment that for matters involving administrative law, Pannick's vast experience of the area gives him the advantage of having "done cases at the edge of the development of the law."

In addition to having a "terrific mind" litigators also report that Pannick is "very easy to work with; he is happy to level with the team".

Of great importance to instructing litigators now that solicitor's costs and disbursements are under such scrutiny by the courts and by clients, Pannick is also described as being "sensible and commercial".

Laurence Rabinowitz QC

Name: Laurence Rabinowitz QC
Chambers: One Essex Court
Practice area: General commercial

Laurence Rabinowitz was called to the Bar in 1987. As a junior, he showed his quality early on in high-profile cases such as NM Rothschild & Sons Limited v Equitable Life & Others [2002], in which he acted for the claimant and won, and he was heavily tipped for the top long before he took silk in 2002.

There had been a public expression of disappointment from the Bar and legal market at large when he had failed to take silk the previous year.

His broad commercial practice incorporates arbitration, banking and insurance cases, contractual disputes, DTI directors disqualification cases and professional negligence.

A fast rising star, Rabinowitz has been involved in cases such as Mahonia Ltd v West LB AG, the 2004 Commercial Court case arising out of the collapse of Enron, in which Rabinowitz appeared alongside Anthony Grabiner QC on behalf of the claimant.

Litigators are effusive in their praise for Rabinowitz. "Terrific. Fantastic. Very incisive and very user friendly", is indicative of the level of praise that instructing solicitors bestow upon him.

Rabinowitz is described as being "technically phenomenally able and very good at arguing obtuse points of law", as well as having "a great legal brain".

He is also cited as having all-important client relations skill, with litigators commenting that he has "interpersonal skills without any lack of cerebral qualities".

Rabinowitz is widely praised for "adding value" and being "a great asset" to a case which, in times when certain law firms are loathe to instruct a barrister where they can use their own solicitors, is great praise indeed.

Rabinowitz is, litigators say, quick to respond to his clients when instructed. However, some top litigators say that they cannot rely on being able to instruct him as he is in constant demand – to some degree a victim of his own success.

Despite the approbation heaped upon him, some top litigators say that Rabinowitz does not yet have the 'gravitas' of a Sumption, Grabiner or Pollock. These litigators do, however, report that Rabinowitz is considered to be in the same class as these 'greats' at the Bar and that what separates him from them is simply time.

On a personal note, Rabinowitz is described as being personable and friendly, with one top litigator saying that he is "a good bloke – you can have a beer with him". In a field where some advocates seem to pride themselves on pugnacity, this is perhaps the ultimate accolade.

Geoffrey Vos QC

Name: Geoffrey Vos QC
Chambers: 3 Stone Buildings
Practice area: General Chancery and commercial

Geoffrey Vos is one of the most recognised and highly reputed barristers at the Bar.

Called in 1977, Vos is the head of 3 Stone Buildings. His curriculum vitae makes impressive reading, having been, to name but two positions, secretary of the Chancery Bar Association from 1994 to 1997 and chairman of the Chancery Bar Association from 1999 to 2001.

Vos has developed a wide Chancery and commercial practice including company and trust law and commercial contract disputes, and now sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division and as an arbitrator, chiefly for insurance and re-insurance disputes.

He has been involved in numerous high-profile international Chancery and commercial cases, including Christopher Evans v SMG in June 2003 and The Estate of Anders Jahre v Compass Trust Company in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in November 2003.

The mention of Vos' name elicits instant recognition and approval from litigators. "We have a very high regard for him," says one. "He is very clear thinking, a very good advocate with great presence and power, and he can turn his hand to all commercial matters." Adds another: "He is regarded [by the department] as fantastic."

Vos is praised for his legal skills in and out of court. Before proceedings, he is reported to be "very incisive" and to have "a very quick brain" by one litigator, and by another to be "tremendous at identifying the most important points of the case".

Vos is popular for his 'people skills' and is certainly not short of friends. One litigator gives Vos an 'all round' seal of approval. "He is great fun to work with and very good with clients," he says. "He is a very good advocate with fantastic judgement and gives very clear guidance and overall strategy."

Although inevitably there are some solicitors who are less than impressed by his courtroom skills – "unnecessarily aggressive" was a comment from one litigator – Vos is praised by the majority of solicitors surveyed for his determined representation of their clients.

"I know him well on my side and as an opponent," says one. "He is a real fighter and does not know when to lie down, which is good when you are on his side and not when you are against him."

Mark Barnes QC

Name: Mark Barnes QC
Chambers: One Essex Court
Practice area: General commercial

Mark Barnes is very much a rising star at One Essex Court. Called to the Bar in 1974, Barnes took silk in 1992.

Barnes' practice area is extensive and includes disputes relating to the supply of oil and gas, the supply of IT/telecommunication services and products, and a variety of banking transactions. He has also acted in international arbitrations and in cases in the European Court of Justice.

High-profile cases in which he has acted include acting in the Companies Court for TXU in the case TXU Europe Energy Trading Limited v Enron Capital & Trade Resources Limited and Enron Gas & Petrochemicals Trading Limited in connection with TXU's gas and electricity contracts with Enron and others.

More recently, in October 2003, Barnes appeared for the defendant in an eight-week trial in the Commercial Court in the case of European International Reinsurance Company v Curzon Insurance Limited & ors.

Barnes has been described by one litigator as "in the tier behind Grabiner and Sumption".

Litigators are effusive in their praise for Barnes' capabilities, with one saying that he is "a massive authority with intellect, politeness and 'userfriendliness'". He is described by a further litigator as "punchy".

In terms of his interface with lawyers and clients outside of court, Barnes is said to be "very able, a very good lawyer and very imaginative".

Barnes is credited with thinking outside of the box, with one litigator commenting that he "looks around the problem and does not halt at the first fence. He is creative in his thinking".

Instructing lawyers report that Barnes is hardworking and demanding and that he "does not suffer fools gladly". Another reported that Barnes is "a very nice guy and one I would tip for the top".

Barnes' court performance is spoken of in glowing terms. "Academic but effective" is the most understated description. A more representative comment comes from one of Barnes' previous adversaries. "We have been against him and he is really excellent," he says. "He engages the judge totally and he argues the right points – it is an art, not a science."

Ali Malek QC

Name: Ali Malek QC
Chambers: 3 Verulam Buildings
Practice area: Banking and commercial law

Ali Malek is, litigators say, the barrister that they would most like to instruct on complex banking matters.

One of Verulam Buildings' true rising stars, Malek was called to the Bar in 1980. Within three years he was involved in high-profile cases such as XAG, a cross-border banking dispute with the USA/England, cited in 1983 All England Law Reports.

In 1996 Malek took silk, followed shortly by his appointment as an assistant recorder in 1998.

During this period Malek was instructed in such widely-reported cases as Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers (No 2) [1998] Ch 84, in which he acted for the liquidators, advising on the Bank of England's powers under the Banking Act.

Malek is widely described by litigators as an "all-rounder"; "a very knowledgeable lawyer, a good advocate and a team player". He is willing, litigators say, to "muck in" with the team, from early conferences with clients to the nitty gritty preparation for trial, all of which helps to provide a seamless service to the client.

His advocacy skill and style is defined as "very effective" and he makes his case "forcefully but fairly". He is defined almost without exception, as a "smooth operator". Malek's prowess in court is clear from the anecdotal evidence of one top litigator, who was so impressed with Malek's performance for the opposition in an earlier case that he subsequently instructed him on the basis of that performance.

Malek is, litigators say, very thorough in his preparation for trial and develops an all-important familiarity with the papers.

Perhaps the best accolade of Malek's written and court skills, and one that may be an omen for the future, is the comment by one top litigator that Malek "writes the judgment in his skeleton".

Nicholas Green QC

Name: Nicholas Green QC
Chambers: Brick Court Chambers
Practice area: European Law

Called to the Bar in 1986, Nick Green took silk in 1998 and has become one of the biggest names at the Bar for competition law.

Green has developed a niche practice area, specialising in European law, public and administrative law and regulatory law.

He appears on a regular basis before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and European Commission. High-profile cases that Green has been instructed on recently include Courage v Crehan [2003], in which he represented the defendant alongside Kim Lewison QC in the High Court, and Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed [2003] in which he represented the respondent in the Court of Appeal alongside Roger Wyand QC.

Green is described by one litigation head as "virtually top in competition matters – if you wanted a competition lawyer, he would be top of the list".

Described as "having an intellect more than clever", Green's reputation is extraordinarily widespread, even among those who do not practise competition law.

Said by instructing solicitors to be "good with clients and a good advocate", Green is well liked and said to "have a user-friendly approach to the case and working as part of a team", which is inevitably welcomed by litigators.

In addition to giving good advice, Green is said by litigators to be practical. He is not, one litigator reports, shy to use his junior where appropriate, thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Despite his reported geniality, Green is nonetheless also described by litigators as "bright, punchy and aggressive", as well as "quite forceful".

These traits, litigators say, come over in the advice that he gives, where he errs less on the side of caution than some of his contemporaries. This results, litigators say, in clients feeling that Green is "on their side".

Green's advocacy is highly rated, with litigators reporting that he is "very quick on his feet".

One litigator has suggested that Green is the barrister you would want to be instructing, not opposing. He can be "irksome" to the other side in that he is extremely confident on his feet and can be "dismissive" of their case.

Daniel Toledano

Name: Daniel Toledano
Chambers: One Essex Court
Practice area: General company and commercial law

Daniel Toledano was called to the Bar in 1993 and is highly acclaimed by litigators, who describe him as "brilliant", "very clever", "commercial and approachable" and, because of this, hard to get hold of.

Toledano's practice area includes a wide range of company and commercial disputes, including advising the banking, insurance and financial sectors and acting for oil and gas suppliers and traders.

He has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including acting in support of Elizabeth Gloster QC for the joint administrators of Enron Direct in Re Enron Direct Ltd, Pearson & Ors v Albany Marketing Ltd & Others [2003].

More recently, Toledano acted for the claimant in support of Christopher Carr QC in the case of Sumitomo Corp v Credit Lyonnaise Rouse Ltd, a large-scale piece of litigation in the Commercial Court. The trial was scheduled to last for 30 weeks, but settled after two.

The word most frequently uttered in connection with Toledano's name is "excellent". He is said by litigators to be "extremely capable and good with document [handling] and clients".

When asked for comments one litigator, having sounded out his department, made the observation "they were raving about him".

Litigators say that Toledano is "a star in the ascendant" and "one of the leading people in his generation".

Helen Davies

Name: Helen Davies
Chambers: Brick Court Chambers
Practice area: General commercial

Helen Davies is recognised as having an all-round brilliance that, litigators say, means she is destined for the top and moving in that direction fast.

Called to the Bar in 1991, Davies' reputation exceeds her years of call, with one litigator commenting "she is clearly a star".

She acted most recently in cases such as Kennecott v Minet Ltd in the Court of Appeal and in Emerald Meats (London) Ltd v AIB Group (UK) plc, both in the Court of Appeal.

Described by one litigator as "very bright, sensible and articulate", Davies has been highly regarded and watched as a rising star for some time. She is reported to be hard to instruct due to her popularity. "She is highly regarded and in demand: the only problem is with her availability," commented one litigator. "She is sensible, intelligent and has good communication [skills]."

This is a quality seen by litigators as a real asset. "She has the ability to communicate well with the client, with solicitors and with the court," says one.

Davies has worked well with different QCs, which is seen as a definite plus by litigators who like to 'cherry pick' their leader and junior from different sets.

"QCs like working with her," says one solicitor.

Davies has a positive work ethic and works very hard, litigators say.

Described as a good all rounder, Davies is said to be approachable, quick, good on paper and in court, and generally to "always come up trumps".

Christopher Nugee QC

Name: Christopher Nugee QC
Chambers: Wilberforce Chambers
Practice area: Chancery commercial

Christopher Nugee's career has gone from strength to strength since he was called to the Bar in 1983. Fifteen years later he was awarded silk and in 2002 was appointed a recorder. Most recently, in 2003, he was authorised to sit as Deputy High Court Judge.

Nugee specialises in a broad range of commercial work, including property and landlord and tenant disputes, professional negligence cases and oil, gas and electricity disputes.

However, the majority of the cases that Nugee has been involved in recently involve pensions litigation, including Barclays Bank v Holmes [2000], which defined the contribution pension scheme, and R (Britannic Asset Management) v Pensions Ombudsman [2002] relating to the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman.

Reports of Nugee's capabilities are impressive.

"One of the cleverest people at the Bar" is the accolade from one top litigator. "You are always aware that you are dealing with a big brain," says another.

Litigators involved in pensions disputes say that Nugee would be the first stop for a difficult case.

Nugee is described by one advocate, reflecting the opinion of many, as being "a good advocate and good at arguing legal points, as well as being good on paper".

Described as "very much a rising star" and "one to watch", those litigators who instruct Nugee for energy work also report being impressed by his commerciality and ability to interact well with their team and describe him as "intellectual but practical".

Nugee has a dedicated work ethic. One litigator reports that in a case he was instructed on Nugee was "completely on top of the subject matter and provided a barrister who well understood the problem and had a commercial solution".

Robert Howe

Name: Robert Howe
Chambers: Blackstone Chambers
Practice area: General commercial

Called to the Bar in 1988, Robert Howe is already a big name among instructing litigators.

His practice incorporates a broad range of commercial law, including media and entertainment law, sports law and employment law. He has acted for financial institutions (including a number of investment banks) and government departments including HM Customs & Excise.

Howe has acted in a number of reported cases dating back to 1992, including most recently for the claimant in Pesskin v Mishcon de Reya in respect of investment advice given, in which the court found for the defendant, as reported in The Times on 18 July, 2003.

He also acted for the defendant in the case of Goldstein v Levy Gee, successfully defending the accountancy firm from a claim arising out of a share valuation, as reported in The Times, 16 June, 2003.

Howe is currently acting for the claimant in a multi-million pound dispute between Gulf Insurance Group of Companies v Sun Life Financial Service of Canada, where he is acting alone in opposition to Gavin Kealey QC.

Howe has, over the years, worked with numerous QCs including Elizabeth Gloster, Geoffrey Hobbs, Alan Boyle and Christopher Moger.

Litigators speak of Howe in high terms. According to one "he should take silk".

A "brilliant all rounder", Howe is described as being "better than his years" and "an outstanding advocate and lawyer".

In his preparation and pre-trial conduct, he is described as "very careful, thoughtful and clever". "He will go far," says one respondent.

Toby Landau

Name: Toby Landau
Chambers: Essex Court Chambers
Practice area: International and commercial law

Called to the Bar in 1993, Toby Landau has very swiftly developed a strong international commercial arbitration practice, and is referred to by litigators as "Mr Arbitration".

Litigators comment that, if you require an arbitration junior, "your first thought would be Toby Landau".

Landau has had numerous publications to his name including The English Arbitration Act 1996: Text and Notes (with Martin Hunter); the UK Government Consultation Report on the draft English Arbitration Bill (1994); and The Written Form Requirement for Arbitration Agreements: When "Written" Means "Oral"' paper, presented at the ICCA in May 2002.

His wealth of knowledge, together with the vast amount of material he has published, has led one litigator to comment: "when it comes to arbitration, he wrote the book."

Landau is acting as counsel in one of Europe's largest international arbitrations, which is taking place in Vienna and involves a joint venture dispute relating to the control of a mobile telephone network in Eastern Europe. In the first phase of the case, which ran from February 2001 to the end of 2003, he was led by Jonny Veeder QC. In the second phase, which is on-going, he is acting as lead counsel.

Landau is also currently acting as Arbitrator for the State of Pakistan in the case of Impregilo v Pakistan, a major ICSID arbitration of a dispute between Italian investors and Pakistan, which is taking place in Paris and is chaired by Judge Guillaume (formerly President of the International Court of Justice.)

The comment "I have not got to Toby because he is so busy" is frequent, with litigators largely agreeing that Landau's success makes him very difficult to instruct.

Credited with skill beyond his years of call in both arbitration and litigation, Landau is said to have "all the ability to get the case done". One litigator for whom Landau handled a case at trial says: "He was regarded as the main reason for our success – more so than the silk."

Landau's experience and expertise is self-perpetuating, as the anecdotal evidence of one of his instructing solicitors reveals. After the leader on a huge multi-million pound case was forced to drop out, Landau was trusted sufficiently to be kept on as leader on the case. Says the litigator: "We won. He is good on his feet, good at cross-examination and he knows the arbitration world inside out."

Stephen Davies QC

Name: Stephen Davies QC
Chambers: Guildhall Chambers
Practice area: Insolvency

Stephen Davies was called to the Bar in 1983 and took silk four years ago, in 2000. He has developed a strong and nationally-recognised personal and corporate insolvency practice.

Recent reported cases that he has appeared in include Barbara Anne Mulkerrins (formerly Barbara Anne Woodward) v PricewaterhouseCoopers (a firm) [2003] in which Davies appeared on behalf of the official receiver before the House of Lords in a test case on the effect of bankruptcy on a person who wishes to sue her professional advisers for failing to avoid her bankruptcy.

Davies is an authority on insolvency law both in practice and in print. He has edited numerous publications including Bankruptcy and Personal Insolvency Reports (Jordans) and Insolvency and the Enterprise Act 2002 (Jordans).

Davies is, litigators say, a regional insolvency specialist who has developed a national reputation and who obtains referrals worldwide. Earlier this year, for example, Davies acted for the claimants in Re Unigreg Ltd (in Administration) sub nom (1) Richard Neville (2) Unigreg Ltd (in Administration) (Applicants) v (1) Beijing You ER GE Healthfood Ltd (2) Kripharma (Hong Kong) Healthcare Ltd, involving repatriating trademarks valuable in China.

He is "user friendly" and "creative", meaning that "he comes up with points that others have not thought of". He is also reported to be very practical and "willing to roll his sleeves up". Prior to and during proceedings, litigators say Davies gives sensible advice and is very good with clients in conference.

One litigator who acts for international insolvency clients reports that clients are often prepared to take Davies' advice after a first glance.

In court, Davies is a fiery advocate, whose cross-examination skills are extremely highly regarded. He is reported to be "robust" or even "aggressive", with one litigator commenting that "he is more Bristol rottweiler than Bristol rover".

Lesley Anderson

Name: Lesley Anderson
Chambers: Kings Chambers
Practice area: Chancery and commercial law, insolvency

Lesley Anderson is a widely respected senior junior practising from Leeds and Manchester set Kings Chambers.

Having trained at the University of Manchester – where she has also lectured in law – Anderson was called to the Bar in 1989 and has since developed a practice area focusing on corporate and personal insolvency, commercial property disputes, commercial contracts, banking and professional negligence.

Anderson has been involved in several significant reported cases including Liverpool City Council v Rosemary Chavasse [1999] and Holaw (470) Limited v Stockton Estates Ltd [2001]. She regularly represents the Government as a member of the Attorney General's Provincial Panel of Counsel and has trained as a mediator.

In 2001, after nominations from two law firms, Anderson was also named a court-appointed examiner in a US case by the Senior Master and charged with taking evidence for use in the Florida District Court.

Anderson's out of court skills are highly praised, with one litigator commenting that she easily got to grip with the technicalities of a case she was instructed on.

Litigators say that Anderson is an all-rounder and "has a nice manner with clients". She is also said to have "a good balance between understanding the technical and commercial aspects" of a case.

In court, litigators say that Anderson is "excellent" and say that she is "very good with the mercantile judges" before whom she appears.

Gregory Pipe

Name: Gregory Pipe
Chambers: Chancery House Chambers
Practice area: General commercial

Leeds-based Gregory Pipe was called to the Bar in 1995 and enjoys a massive reputation beyond his nine years' of call.

He has developed a practice area revolving around commercial disputes including construction and technology contracts, business and asset share sales, international sale of goods and insurance disputes.

Reported cases that he has been involved in recently include Keith Davy (Crantock) v Ibatex and Longstaff v Birtles both in the Court of Appeal [2001].

Described by litigators as being "very commercial", Pipe is also said to have "a lot of skill in a lot of different subject areas".

Pipe is praised as a "fantastic" advocate and lawyer, with one litigator saying: "he is in a league of his own in the regional market".

One of Pipe's great strengths is, litigators say, that "he has a serious brain, which is cleverer and deeper than most".

Pipe is also commended for his good communication skills and team work with one litigator saying "he is a clear communicator and he is on your side – he rolls his sleeves up and is a hard worker".

The anecdotal evidence of a further litigator supports these claims.

In one case, Pipe was given 48 hours to produce a written opinion for a without prejudice meeting with the other side and produced an opinion that, the instructing litigator says, led to a settlement at the meeting.