Commercial Bar: No 'I' in team
The line between the work of barristers and solicitors is becoming increasingly blurred as both professions undergo simultaneous transformations. For those practising independently at the Bar, these changes undoubtedly affect working styles, as well as the nature of their relationship with solicitors.
February 28, 2007 at 08:57 PM
6 minute read
The line between the work of barristers and solicitors is becoming increasingly blurred as both professions undergo simultaneous transformations. For those practising independently at the Bar, these changes undoubtedly affect working styles, as well as the nature of their relationship with solicitors.
Since it is now an established practice for law firms to employ in-house barristers, many firms now have their own internal capabilities to provide their clients with at least some (and, in many cases, most) services that in the past were provided almost invariably by independently practising members of the Bar.
This, in certain instances, has affected not only the demand for services of the independent barristers but also the nature and scope of their instructions. For example, where counsel in the past would have been instructed by solicitors to provide a full written piece of advice in relation to a commercial matter, now a tendency has been observed for the instructions to be more limited in scope, such as oral advice in conference, or advice on an isolated point or a specific matter in a case by way of a second opinion.
Tightly-knit teams
'Teamwork' between independent barristers, their instructing solicitors and, in some situations, even the clients is becoming more customary. This is especially true in heavy, complex litigation, where all the lawyers often work together as a tightly-knit legal team. In those circumstances, at the very least, barristers are expected to show a greater flexibility in terms of their availability for conferences at short notice or simply at the other end of the phone line for a quick discussion. Sometimes we should be prepared to be at the solicitors' (and clients') beck and call, if so required.
Moreover, teamworking may lead to a situation where a junior barrister spends more time working with instructing solicitors in a law firm due to the natural demands of a fast-paced, deadline-ridden case, the amount of documentary evidence involved, and so on.
This was apparent recently when I joined a busy case – a piece of heavy commercial litigation with an international element – and soon found myself working alongside my colleagues in a City law firm, often trying to juggle my involvement in this large commercial matter with court work in smaller cases.
My responsibilities in the large-scale litigation varied widely; they included providing traditional barrister services such as advisory and drafting work, as well as liaison with the client's lawyers and professional witnesses and performing certain coordinating and other functions.
It should be pointed out that in a case involving a foreign or international element, a junior barrister's proficiency in a foreign language becomes extremely useful. Hence the view that there is no or little advantage for a barrister to speak a foreign language cannot be sustained in the realities of the modern legal world.
'Team player' qualities
It is important for a barrister to possess certain qualities and abilities in order to become an integral part of a legal team – quite simply, to be a 'team player'.
This entails putting aside the more traditional, solitary working style that manifests itself in, among other things, keeping a certain distance from the instructing solicitors (not to mention the ultimate clients) and instead adapting to a more fast-moving, interactive project-like environment – in particular to the specific working practices of the other team members, taking into account their firm's overall business culture.
Thus, the first words that come to mind for the purpose of describing the qualities that a barrister has to possess to be a team player are 'flexibility' and 'adaptability'. This will be even more so in a case where the ultimate client (for example, the legal department of a client company) is also heavily involved in the teamworking process. Hence their working practices and styles should equally be borne in mind.
Culture clash
Though the corporate environment and culture is obviously different from that of a collective of barristers independently practising in chambers, nonetheless, some similarities may be observed. For example, as far as the hierarchical structure is concerned, a set of barristers' chambers and a firm of solicitors are not wholly unlike one another.
There is no unique prescription for a mode of any potential teamworking between barristers and their instructing solicitors (and, in some cases, the ultimate clients). The extent and the specific manner of a barrister's integration into a legal team will be largely dictated by the nature of a specific project or piece of litigation, the resources already available in the team and other factors. In some cases, as mentioned above, it may be necessary for a junior counsel to become fully integrated into the legal team to the extent that they will be spending an increasing amount of time working alongside their instructing solicitors and will eventually become totally absorbed by the project in question, allowing little possibility for doing anything else.
In other cases, where less intensive interaction within the team is required, a different scenario may be adopted (such as where a barrister's role in a project would be, to an extent, that of a visiting consultant only occasionally working alongside the other members of the legal team).
Equally, there are different ways in which a legal team of solicitors and independently practising barristers can be formed. The traditional way in which a barrister is approached and instructed by solicitors acting in a case does not offer a barrister much (if any) scope for influencing the composition of the team.
However, another scenario is possible where a barrister may have a higher degree of influence and control over this matter, and even have a key role in the team formation process; for example, receiving instructions through direct access and so becoming involved at the very start of a chain of referrals i.e. actually being the referrer of work to the solicitor, rather than the more conventional reverse.
Client benefits
Finally, a few words about the benefit to the ultimate clients from a tightly-knit legal team. Obvious advantages are the absence or relaxation of a formal instruction process of barristers by solicitors, which makes work more time-efficient, and more intense interaction between team members, which results in a more efficient response to the fast changing and developing circumstances of a project or case as well as in the enhanced shared knowledge and expertise within the team.
It has already become a marketing point for some sets of chambers and individual barristers to offer teamworking experience. Overall, efficient teamwork that joins the effort of the independently practising barristers and their instructing solicitors (and, in some cases, the clients) is one of the key elements in the success of a case – and is one that should not be underestimated.
Ekaterina Sjostrand is a barrister at 13 Old Square.
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 AllSome Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Trending Stories
- 1Librarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
- 2Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
- 3Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
- 4Ex-Prosecutor’s Trial Ends as Judge Throws Out Her Felony Indictment in Ahmaud Arbery Death Case
- 5Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
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