Bar welcomes end of fees 'anachronism'
Barristers are celebrating the news that payday is set to become a more regular fixture. After almost a decade of negotiation and stalled talks, the Law Society and Bar Council have struck an historic deal to make arrangements for paying barristers contractually binding by this October.
January 31, 2007 at 08:07 PM
3 minute read
Barristers are celebrating the news that payday is set to become a more regular fixture. After almost a decade of negotiation and stalled talks, the Law Society and Bar Council have struck an historic deal to make arrangements for paying barristers contractually binding by this October.
At present, the standard terms of work do not create a contract that is enforceable through the courts. But the changes, which come as the Bar moves to reposition itself ahead of the impending legal service reforms, will enable barristers to sue solicitors for non-payment off the back of a legally-binding invoice.
The agreement has been welcomed by barristers and solicitors, with both sides happy to see an end to the 'anachronistic' system currently in place, which sees clerks issue the instructing solicitor a 'request for payment fee note' on behalf of the barrister concerned. Under the proposed system, any fee dispute will go to a compulsory arbitration scheme before a joint panel. Once a decision has been reached, barristers will be able to sue for outstanding fees.
The biggest problem with the current system is the length of time it takes for barristers to receive payment, rather than firms refusing to pay or disputing the fees. Young barristers in particular are hoping the new terms will ease cashflow problems which have been exacerbated by a slump in litigation work.
Historically, objections to changing the current fee arrangements have included tax disadvantages, the danger of onerous terms being added to the contract and even the 'distastefulness' of lawyers suing each other.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom litigation head Paul Mitchard dismisses this sentiment, voicing his support for the agreed changes: "For solicitors, the barristers' billing system is antiquated and confusing – it is still based on a 19th-century-type billing style. The fact that barristers cannot sue for outstanding fees is ridiculous and an out-of-date theory."
Bar Council chairman Geoffrey Vos told Legal Week: "This is a complete revolution – it is intended to be even-handed and fair for both solicitors and barristers. An agreement has never previously been reached on a payment scheme which has been approved and endorsed by both the Law Society and the Bar Council. It will be a big cultural change for both sides and put the profession on a more commercial footing."
The new contractual terms are to drawn up by a working party before both the Bar Council and Law Society set to work educating the profession on the new way of working. Members of the working party include Andrew Mitchell and Tim Straker, of the Bar Council's fees collection committee, and Law Society policy adviser Jenny Rawstorne.
Solicitors have, however, expressed concern about how the new fee arrangements will work. "The question with the new system is what the terms of the contract will be," said Herbert Smith litigation partner Ted Greeno.
The timing of the fees agreement is vital, as it will take effect shortly before the Legal Services Bill allows ownership of firms to take effect and law firms and chambers to merge.
Vos agreed that the changes put the Bar on a much more commercial footing. "It has been a long, drawn-out process with difficult issues that needed to be addressed. This part of the profession has not before operated on a contractual basis so it is a big cultural change," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHSF Defends Bayer on Roundup Class Action as Litigation Comes to an End in Australia
2 minute readNorton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over 'Unreasonable' Ethnicity Score System
3 minute readBirkenstocks: Footwear or Fine Art? German Law Firm SKW Schwarz Steps Up in Court
Freshfields and Quinn Emanuel Face Off in Latest JP Morgan-WeRealize Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Appears Sympathetic to Law Requiring Porn Sites to Verify Users' Age
- 2Cybersecurity Breaches, Cyberbullying, and Ways to Help Protect Clients From Both
- 3AI in 2025: Five Key Predictions on How It Will Reshape International Law Firms
- 4Justice Known for Asking 'Tough Questions' Resolves to Improve Civility
- 5Robinson & Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250