Chambers see their own regulator as a block on the road to ABS
Chambers wanting to make structural changes under the Legal Services Act (LSA) could turn to the SRA because their watchdog, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), will not be LSA-ready until 2014.
The arrival of fixed-fee sets Riverview Chambers and Stobart Barristers has prompted some to consider life as an alternative business structure (ABS).
Being able to offer block booking to in-house counsel for a set fee is attractive for chambers, which are under greater fee pressure than ever before. Some are keen to employ solicitors in-house, while others want to ramp up the number of direct access instructions.
Yet some at the bar feel the BSB is not on their wavelength, saying it has been dragging its feet on relaxing its regulations.
“The BSB will not have entity-based regulation until 2014 and by then, who knows what changes might have taken place outside the bar?” a source said.
Another said that media institutions in particular were keen to block-book, but were being denied the chance by the BSB rules.
“Media companies want to be able to use corporate entities, but unless we take on a solicitor and get SRA-regulated we’re not able to do that,” the source said. “We’re being held back by our own regulator.”
The BSB said regulatory reform would need the approval of the Legal Services Board. It plans to submit an application to become a licensing authority in December and, if approved, the statutory process means that “2014 is the earliest we could regulate ABSs”.
Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 10-Jul-2012 10:23 am
The suggestion that fixed fee Barrister work is something new, is quite wrong. At Windsor Chambers, (Windsor, London, New York), fixed fees have been offered in almost all direct access cases as the norm since July 2004, when the public access rules came into force.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Jul-2012 5:13 pm
As far as I am aware, there is only one member of Windsor Chambers - an individual by the name of Marc Beaumont. Is Mr Beaumont indulging in some self-promotion under the nom de plume of "Anonymous"?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Marc Beaumont | 11-Aug-2012 0:25 am
Dear Mr Anonymous,
I did not intentionally omit my name. Nor do I need to self-promote. I wonder if you would be so rude if you had the courage to reveal your name.
Marc Beaumont
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment