Chambers’ revenues have increased in each of the three years that The Bar Top 30 has been running, with this year’s 7 per cent hike pushing total gross income over £500m for the first time to £530.5m.

But with the top 30 sets taking on almost 100 laterals between them – in addition to tenancy appointments from pupillage – and with five new sets joining the ranks this year, there are 25 per cent more barristers than at the last count. This extra manpower has clearly made a significant impact on chambers’ financial performance.

Although the magic circle of commercial sets – Brick Court, Essex Court, One Essex Court and Fountain Court – made just one lateral between them (Simon Browne-Wilkinson QC joined Fountain from Serle Court), there has been plenty of action further down the table.

2-3 Gray’s Inn Square acquired nine new tenants and 1 Crown Office Row seven, while Quadrant Chambers (formerly 4 Essex Court), Exchange and Four New Square all took six. Not surprisingly, though, it was the UK’s largest set, No 5 Chambers, that produced the biggest growth spurt. Having picked up 24 new tenants in 2002-2003, the Birmingham giant signed up 22 this time around. Among them was Rex Tedd QC, formerly both the leader of the Midlands and Oxford circuit and head of its main rival in the city, St Philips, which in stark contrast picked up just four new barristers.

These 22 new faces helped No 5 post a staggering 27.2 per cent hike in gross fees to £22m, easily the biggest rise of the top 30. In fact, the only set to come close was St Philips with a 20.6 per cent hike.

In London, a stellar year was enjoyed at Serle Court (18.8 per cent rise in billings), Landmark (13.6 per cent), 3/4 South Square (13.5 per cent) and 39 Essex Street (11.5 per cent). These were the exceptions, though, with the majority recording limited growth. Brick Court, the top-ranked set for the third year in succession, made the biggest gain of the magic circle, up by 11.1 per cent. One Essex was up 8 per cent and Essex Court by 3 per cent, while Fountain Court remained static.

The 1,968 barristers now tenanted at the top 30 sets (excluding door tenants) boast an average income of £269,563, a decrease of almost 15 per cent on last year.

This decline reveals just how tough the market has been for the bar over the last 12 months, with most predicting an even tougher year to come. The five new chambers to have joined this year’s Bar Top 30 have made a considerable impact on the rate of decline in average revenue per barrister (RPB), but seven sets – Fountain Court, Blackstone Chambers, 3 Verulam Buildings, 4 Pump Court, Exchange, One Crown Office Row and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square have all posted drops in RPB, albeit marginal ones in most cases.

Any set that has matched last year’s figures, or suffered only a slight dip, must be considered a solid performer. After all, Blackstone, where average RPB dropped by just under 4 per cent against a virtually static turnover, had the most House of Lords appearances and ranked fourth for appearances in the Court of Appeal.

This is even more impressive when viewed in the context of the continual decline in courtroom litigation and the bar’s increasing reliance on advisory work – particularly for in-house clients – arbitrations and mediation.

Consequently, the speed with which court listings can be secured means advocates’ diaries are no longer booked up so far in advance. Despite the record £3m brief fee paid to Essex Court head Gordon Pollock QC in BCCI Liquidators v Bank of England, clients are using the greater flexibility that now exists when instructing the bar to attack traditional pricing structures. A number of firms, notably Clifford Chance and Pinsents, have already demanded an alternative payment mechanism to the brief fee.

If a set has managed to record a considerable hike in RPB, it is likely to be the result of large numbers of laterals or one or two mega-cases skewing the figures. No 5’s 22 laterals helped it hike RPB by 25 per cent, while Serle Court – with the second largest rise in RPB up 24 per cent – boasted leading roles for 17 of its tenants on its top five cases of the past 12 months. These included Mattos v MacDaniels (the Noroeste case), Westminster City Council v Dame Shirley Porter and Speed Investments Ltd v Formula One Holdings Ltd.

Those without the luxury of a remunerative long-running trial or two have been forced to address the issue of stagnating revenues.

A number have already increased chambers contributions, the percentage of income they charge tenants for clerking, administration and property costs, with others set to follow suit.

A set boasting a low percentage charge is a useful indicator of how well run it is, especially when coupled with a good staff to barrister ratio. One Essex Court shines in this regard, with the lowest chambers contributions, at 11 per cent, coupled with an excellent staff to barrister ratio of 0.5:1. 3/4 South Square, with chambers’ contributions of 11.5 per cent and a staff to barrister ratio of 0.42:1, and Essex Court’s 13 per cent contributions and 0.48:1 ratio, also perform strongly.

As last year, international work represents an increasingly key market for the bar. Maitland Chambers, for example, won first-time instructions from 36 new clients in the past 12 months, but its key client wins were virtually all US firms. They included Bingham McCutchen, Dewey Ballantine and Darlington.

Maitland is not alone in targeting US firms: 20 Essex Street fostered close ties with McDermott Will & Emery and Hunton & Williams; 39 Essex Street with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Jones Day, and XXIV Old Buildings with Winston & Strawn.

The bar has profited from the proliferation of US firms now based in London. Many are as yet too small to boast critical mass in their litigation departments, but still require the resource. The bar offers a more friendly face than rival UK firms, which would think nothing of using the opportunity of a litigation referral to muscle in on other areas of the client relationship.

The dynamic of the three-way relationship between the bar, law firms and the in-house client is also shifting. New rules about direct access and several years of marketing to in-house clients appear to be paying off. A number of chambers have revelled in the tables turning with their law firm clients, finding themselves in the novel position of taking instructions from the in-house client and, if and when the dispute finds its legs, asked to select a law firm.

Take 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square, one of five new entries in this year’s The Bar Top 30. Almost 50 per cent of its work is now sourced through direct access, and key in-house client wins last year include BAA, BskyB and Bristows Helicopters. Not that the bar is having it all its own way. It is no longer immune from the risks law firms have been sharing with their clients for years. In a further indication of the tough state of the market, the bar has witnessed an explosion in the number of cases funded under conditional fee arrangements (CFA).

Exchange Chambers reported an 105 per cent hike in the number of CFAs undertaken in the last 12 months, with 39 Essex Street up 44 per cent.