Chambers Blog

Direct access for Chambers to lay clients has been extended as per the following press release from the Bar Council:

1 April 2010

The Legal Services Board approves Bar Standards Board applications designed to relax provisions in Code of Conduct for barristers' working practices  
Significant changes to the Code of Conduct now for the first time permit barristers to:
�¡Become managers of Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs)
�¡Work in partnerships
�¡Work in both a self-employed capacity and employed capacity at the same time (although not in the same case)
�¡Hold shares in LDPs
�¡Share premises and office facilities with others
�¡Investigate and collect evidence and witness statements
�¡Attend police stations
�¡Conduct correspondence
In addition, there has been a significant extension to the Public Access Scheme.
The Legal Services Board (LSB) approved three applications, submitted by the BSB, that change or relax provisions in the Code of Conduct relating to barristers' working practices. The code amendments and the guidance approved by the LSB take immediate effect.
The LSB (which has taken over responsibility to approve such amendments from the Ministry of Justice), approved the following applications:
�¡LDP Application - This application arises from the Board decisions in November 2009 to permit barristers to work as managers in Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs), to work in a ‘dual capacity', to hold shares in LDPs, to work in partnerships.
�¡The Structure of Self-Employed Practice Application - This application also arose from the November 2009 Board meeting and in many ways complements the first by enabling the Bar to offer services to consumers in a variety of flexible ways, including permitting barristers to: share premises and office facilities with others, investigate and collect evidence and witness statements, attend police stations, conduct correspondence.
 
�¡The Public Access Scheme Application - This application follows the review of the public access scheme in 2009.  It is a further set of changes designed to enable greater direct access to barristers' services for consumers and permits barristers to: offer services in an enlarged area and to engage in correspondence between parties.
Commenting on the LSB's approval of the BSB's Code amendments, Baroness Deech, BSB Chair, said:
"The BSB is committed to making appropriate changes to permitted practice at the Bar to benefit its clients in terms of greater access to barristers' services, broadening the range of services available from the Bar, giving consumers more choice and bringing down costs whilst maintaining the high standards associated with the Bar. The BSB is therefore very pleased that the LSB has approved these three applications as submitted."
 
Notes to the Editor
1.The following link takes you to application decisions on the Legal Services Board's website:
http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/applications.htm
2. For more information please contact the Bar Standards Board Press Office on 020 7067 0123
3.Visit the Bar Standards Board website at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk

It is understood that in 2010 direct access will be extended to other areas of law. If you wish to receive details of this please contact the Bar Council.

Boundary disputes can turn into some of the most acrimonious civil cases to come before the county courts. Often the point in dispute will have relatively little financial value, with the parties becoming entrenched and fighting for the "principle" of the case. Typically, disputes concern the position of a fence or hedge, or car parking problems. Rights of way and noise nuisance also feature strongly as complaints. Funding is not generally available for neighbour disputes form the Legal Services Commission (civil legal aid) but may be available on a house insurance policy. Many solicitors will not undertake boundary dispute cases on a "no win no fee" basis, since such cases do not usually include a claim for damages. Very often, one or both of the parties is left to fund the case privately or represent themselves. In these circumstances, an accredited barrister can provide cost effective advice, advocacy and help with documents under the Direct Access scheme.

 Written by Ian Jones, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, Specialising in Direct Access work, including Boundary Disputes.

  As the recession looms there will be many employers wishing to relieve themselves of staff to save costs. Many will prefer their employees to leave voluntarily and to sign compromise agreements. These when properly made lawfully prevent employees going to employment tribunals to  contest the circumstances of their leaving. Employers will sweeten the pill by agreeing to pay and ex-gratia lump sum. Barristers through the direct access scheme are amongst qualified lawyers who are allowed to sign these agreements to make them lawful as preventing employees from going to employment tribunals.

In case an employee has in fact been guilty of some behaviour which would otherwise have entitled the employer to dismiss, prudent employers can include a clause or warranty to the effect that the money payable under the compromise agreement will not in fact be paid if it is discovered that indeed the employee has been guilty of something which would have given the employer the right to dismiss. Such a clause can be termed a warranty along these lines, the employee agreeing as follows:

"You warrant as a strict condition of this agreement that there are no circumstances of which you are aware or of which you ought reasonably to be aware which would constitute a repudiatory breach on your part of your contract of employment which would entitle or have entitled the company to terminate your employment without notice."

In Collidge v Freeport plc [2008] IRLR 697 an employee was found to have been guilty of financial impropriety prior to a payment of £445k, under a compromise agreement and so no payment was made by the employer. The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's unsurprising finding that such a clause was a condition precedent for payment under the compromise agreement and the employer did not have to make the payment. Mr C's warranty was a condition, a sina qua non, of the employer's obligations to pay. The warranty was a pre-condition of the employers liability to perform its obligations under the contract.

Writen by Robert Rees, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in direct access, employment law and compromise agreements.

On the 24th October Miss Fitton-Brown completed a direct-access courst and will soon be able to take instructions direct from clients in certain family law cases and in civil law.