Bar Standards Board kicks off pre-reform review
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has launched a root-and-branch review of the future of the profession in the wake of the Legal Services Act. A consultation paper was published this week (6 February) on a series of overarching issues such as how the Bar will be regulated, how barristers will be able to form partnerships with non-barristers and whether a compensation fund will be needed. In particular, the consultation will address what changes to the rules need to be made in order to accommodate lawyers and non-lawyers combining legal services as part of an alternative business structure, or barristers and lawyers working together in legal disciplinary partnerships (LDPs).
February 06, 2008 at 07:03 AM
3 minute read
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has launched a root-and-branch review of the future of the profession in the wake of the Legal Services Act.
A consultation paper was published this week (6 February) on a series of overarching issues such as how the Bar will be regulated, how barristers will be able to form partnerships with non-barristers and whether a compensation fund will be needed.
In particular, the consultation will address what changes to the rules need to be made in order to accommodate lawyers and non-lawyers combining legal services as part of an alternative business structure, or barristers and lawyers working together in legal disciplinary partnerships (LDPs).
The BSB, which regulates more than 14,000 barristers in England and Wales, will also be gauging opinion on whether the profession wants the BSB to regulate the new LPD structure.
In addition, the consultation will question whether the 'cab rank' rule, requiring barristers to take on a case brought to them, should be restricted to the self-employed Bar, as well as whether a compensation fund should be set up if barristers, for the first time, are able to handle client money.
The content of the Bar Vocational Course will also be considered, to gauge whether barristers would be able to provide litigation services in a similar way to solicitors.
BSB chair Ruth Evans said: "These are prospectively once-in-a-generation changes to the way in which barristers are regulated in the public interest, and the BSB is determined to devise a package, which creates the maximum benefit for those who have a stake in the services of the Bar."
BSB director Mark Stobbs (pictured) commented: "There are rules in place to protect barristers which mean they may not be able to take advantage of the new changes under the Legal Services Act. As we are the body that makes the rule changes, we want to make sure barristers are in a position to take advantage."
The consultation comes ahead of the implementation of the Legal Services Act, which is expected to come into full effect around 2011, and includes provisions such as outside investment into law firms.
Charles Hollander QC commented: "There is a complete lack of awareness in the profession as to the effect of the Legal Services Act. One of the important things is to try to get people to understand what is going on and the fundamental issues facing the Bar."
"Some of the biggest issues are whether barristers can practise in partnerships, and if they are permitted to do so, the important related issue of the 'cab rank' rule and the conflict problems which would arise. The 'cab rank' rule, which is there to promote access to justice, is something the Bar has always regarded as very important. There are likely to be strong views as to whether barristers should be allowed to practice in partnership and whether the 'cab rank' rule should be modified," he added.
The news comes as the Solicitors Regulation Authority consults on a 'suitability test' to evaluate the character and suitability of non-lawyer partners looking to work in a partnership structure.
For thousands of the best legal jobs, click here.
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
© 2024 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 AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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