Analysis The Bar The bar 2020: Divide and rule By Kate Beioley 4 August 2014 00:05 17 December 2015 12:04 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 5 August 2014 at 09:41 It will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of advocacy rights to trade mark and patent attorneys will have to the traditionally very lucrative IP bar Reply Link Anonymous 6 August 2014 at 14:26 Sorry but does the Lawyer not simply invent all of the supposedly “estimated” revenue figures? This information is kept confidential by virtually all sets on the list making all the superficially forensic analysis a pure fantasty. If they do not invent the data, from where do they claim it comes? Since people will pay for this report, I suggest they ought to explain. Reply Link Harry Ruben 8 August 2014 at 08:07 I agree with 6 Aug comment: where does the date come from and by whom is it supplied? Chambers’ C’tee, Senior clerk, Chief Exec? Reply Link Not Amused 8 August 2014 at 10:08 My understanding is that they estimated the figures for law firms for years until some ‘gave in’ and told them. This started a momentum whereby others would tell them. But in the end LLP status finished early what would have been the inevitable caving in of every firm (except I imagine Slaughters who at least have some backbone). The problem is that I don’t think the same tactic will work with the Bar. I think we are all far too grumpy and curmudgeonly to give in and there is absolutely no benefit to appearing in this list because none of us really believe it helps generate work. So I imagine they’ll just carry on ‘estimating’ away because on the other hand, I don’t think their made up numbers give rise to any recoverable loss. Reply Link PR Guru 8 August 2014 at 15:15 Looking at the comments above it seems like we have a few dinosaurs in our midst. First, many chambers happily give out their financial details, often via the chief clerk or CEO, but also in some cases via the more marketing-savvy heads of chambers. What many barristers may not appreciate is that your set’s revenue, the number of Silks and other ‘benchmarks’ mean a lot to law firms that may (or may choose not to) instruct members of a certain set on far more than just a single barrister’s reputation in court. Taking part in the giving of collective data for such indexes is now part and parcel of chambers marketing and business development, which helps all members of the set. Ignore and deride it at your peril….Other sets are happy to enjoy the publicity if your set won’t play ball. Reply Link Not Amused 11 August 2014 at 12:12 PR Guru – how fortunate you must find life. It must be remarkably warming to find that your beliefs about what others ought to do coincides so conveniently with your own self interest. Reply Link PR Guru 11 August 2014 at 14:41 @Not Amused 12.12PM – I think you may have missed the irony of your own comment, one presumes that you also ‘believe’ in the importance of providing the services that you provide and of your clients buying them. If you are a barrister, for example (though you may not be), one assumes that you believe people should pay significant amounts of money for legal services, which of course would favour you. We’re all in the same business: selling professional services. Reply Link Bob 13 August 2014 at 14:14 @ Amanda Illing, chief executive, Hardwicke, who said “We do direct access work and have done for many years, but our target client is a business or corporate or general counsel – the market targeted by solicitors.” And this is why I shall never ever ever instruct / brief your barristers. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.