The public access scheme was first established in 2004 and allows a barrister to be instructed directly by a lay client without the need for a solicitor. In order to take on public access work a barrister must have more than three years’ practising experience, must be properly trained and must have registered with the Bar Council as a public access practitioner. One stumbling block has been payment of barristers by clients.

In his inaugural speech to the Bar Council on Monday, Michael Todd QC, Chairman-Elect, confirmed that he is “chairing a Working Group, essentially led again by the Member Services Team, to look at the feasibility of a service which would provide BSB-regulated entities and Public Access barristers with an escrow account facility in which can be placed ‘client monies’ and which will be administered centrally from one location by a third party.” He said: “Already considerable interest has been displayed by a number of potential providers of this service.”

He told the Bar Council: “We have no entitlement to work. We must compete for it. We must invest better to adapt, to change, and to flourish. The returns on such investment are, in my view, undeniable.” He went on to say: “Of a Bar of about 15,000 members, nearly 5,000 are now ‘Public Access’ trained. They have made an investment in their future.” In his CrimeLine twitter

Andrew Keogh confirms that: “My police rep courses are mainly filled with barristers at the moment.”

Then on Wednesday last week the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the regulatory body for barristers in England and Wales, announced that it is consulting on amendments to its Code of Conduct for barristers following a review of its public access rules. The BSB said: “Public access rules do not allow a client who may be eligible for public funding to instruct a public access barrister. This is one of the rules the BSB seeks to change. The consultation also suggests that barristers should have a duty to ensure that, before accepting public access instructions, the client is able to make an informed decision about whether to apply for legal aid or to proceed with public access representation.” The lifting of the ban on barristers with under three years’ practising experience from accepting public access instructions is also proposed.

The BSB claim that the change would improve client choice and provide greater access to justice for clients who find themselves without access to legal aid solicitors. Removing the three-year rule and allowing barristers to do direct access work from the time they qualify would expand consumer choice, create greater competition and increase the supply of high quality and competitively priced advocacy services.

According to the Law Gazette, the consultation paper states: “The purpose of allowing lay clients to instruct barristers directly is to remove unnecessary barriers to the provision of barristers’ services and to save costs by cutting out superfluous intermediaries.”

The consultation will close at 5pm on 9 March 2012, and the consultation paper can be found at:
http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/assets/documents/Public%20access%20consultation%20paper%20new.pdf
PS: “Escrow generally refers to the placing of property which is the subject of a commercial transaction (money, title deeds, software source code, etc.,) into the hands of a trusted third party for safekeeping until some specified event occurs which will trigger the release of the property to one party to the initial transaction.” (Out-Law.com)

As reported in the ‘Law Gazette’, the new chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Max Hill, has warned that criminal barristers will take direct action, including withdrawing their services, if the government presses ahead with its plans for price-competitive tendering. He told the Bar Council’s recent annual conference that “price competition is anathema to an independent, high-quality bar”, and would mark an end to a quality service and equality. He said that the introduction of price competition and the retention of an independent bar are mutually exclusive, and that the government is in ‘cloud cuckoo land’ if it thinks the system would present a level playing field on which the bar can compete. “Price competition is nothing short of an order that the bar disband and go into business with solicitors. Call it fusion, call it partnership, call it what you like. It is the end of the bar,” he said. He added that barristers are prepared to “act on principle, to safeguard the public interest which is served by an independent bar of specialist advocates….We can and must stand up and act.”

On taking office as chairman of the Criminal Bar Association in September, Max Hill stressed that criminal barristers play a vital role, both prosecuting and representing people charged with criminal offences, to ensure the criminal justice system works efficiently and fairly. He warned that, in this context, legal aid cuts could cripple the criminal bar. In addition, in an interview with ‘The Times’, he said that in the view of the Criminal Bar the imminent cuts to barristers’ fees, on top of serial reductions in preceding years, amounts to a very real threat to a fully functional criminal justice system.

Also reported in the ‘Law Gazette’ is that plans to introduce the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) have run into serious difficulties. The Criminal Bar Association has been told by Max Hill that, amid a dispute about linking payment to accreditation level, progress on QASA has been halted so far as the CBA is concerned. He said that the scheme as proposed would lead to “a world in which the word barrister would have no meaning, and no place within the fee structure.” He added: “Proper reflection from all sides may produce a solution. It is in everyone’s interest to allow that solution to emerge.”

So it looks as if his year of office could be interesting. Urging his colleagues to remain united in the face of the challenges that lie ahead he said: “Tough times are undoubtedly ahead for the criminal Bar. But rather than allowing these issues to divide and depress us all, my mission must be to raise our chins from the floor. I have one key message for anyone who will listen: you can destroy the publicly funded Bar if you want, but you will want it back when it is too late to recover what you have lost.”

The Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association are all gravely concerned about BVT as currently proposed by the LSC, involving a limited scheme which would cover lower crime work in police stations and the Magistrates’ Courts. This would probably be extended should it prove successful. BVT involves competitive tendering based on price for criminal defence work, as solicitors’ firms will bid for blocks of work, with the lowest bidder getting the work. Strong concerns are expressed that criminal legal aid firms could be drastically reduced, meaning the number of firms available to clients will diminish, as the already financially vulnerable supplier base is put at risk. “The widespread use of BVT is likely to… deny clients access to many competent and dedicated solicitors who want to serve them. The bidding processes proposed are opaque and not suited to the commissioning of professional services, where the freedom of the individual is put at risk”, said Paul Marsh, Law Society President.

In their response to the proposals, the Law Society said that they will have a hugely detrimental impact on the quality of representation in police stations, and thereby damage the criminal justice system as a whole. Of equal concern is the failure to conduct a full and proper impact assessment, taking account of the potential disproportionate impact on women and BME practitioners. Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar, said that “we cannot afford to sacrifice the present robust system for a scheme which lacks all economic justification, and which will have a disproportionate impact on BME practitioners. The LSC’s failure properly to assess the impact on BME practitioners is potentially discriminatory and may be unlawful; it has a statutory duty to avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and it has comprehensively failed to comply with this requirement”.

Speaking at a conference organised by the Legal Action Group to celebrate 60 years of legal aid, justice department minister Lord Bach said that BVT is “not a simple cost cutting exercise. It’s aimed at securing a sustainable, effective and efficient supplier base”. In an interview with the ‘Guardian’ he acknowledged that his policies are deeply unpopular among many former colleagues, adding that “I have to do what I can to ensure the legal aid is spent in the best possible way, and that’s what I’m trying to do.”

The Law Society’s response to the Legal Services Commission’s consultation on best value tendering for CDS contracts 2010 can be found at:-
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/180185/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents/templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Government%20proposals/Documents/bvt_response180609.pdf

According to Clare Dyer, legal editor of the “Guardian”, the move has been pushed through by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, “who has long believed that judges’ fusty headgear and antiquated garments should be consigned to the dressing-up box. He and his recent predecessors have argued that the outdated apparel contributes to public attitudes that the judges are out of touch with ordinary life. But he failed to convince judges hearing criminal cases, who claim that wigs add to the dignity of proceedings and confer an anonymity which stops villains recognising them out of court.” Wigs will continue to be worn by high court judges and circuit judges presiding over criminal cases. Circuit judges will lose their wigs for civil cases but will retain their current gown and tippet rather than moving to the new robe.

When he decided to simplify judges’ garb, the lord chief justice expected barristers to follow suit. But the profession has been fighting to retain its traditional wig and gown. The Bar Council has twice consulted with its grassroots and has still not announced whether it intends to come into line with the judges. The consultation has revealed that well over half want to keep their traditional dress for cases in the House of Lords, court of appeal and high court.

Judges in the House of Lords may adopt a simple black gown when it becomes the supreme court in October 2009.