[Kessler`]

(Original post by Wildman)
spaffing the tax payers' money up the wall in the name of tradition, all so that plump barristers are kept in port at Lincoln's Inn.

My god that attitude/stereotype never ceases to rile me.

[InnerTemple]

(Original post by Kessler`)
My god that attitude/stereotype never ceases to rile me.

Inner don't serve port on normal dining sessions...

[Kessler`]

(Original post by Wildman)
While not completely true it does have the ring of truth about it, and anyway the original point remains. Having it all under one roof is cheaper, more efficient, and provides basically the same sort of service. The public and successive governments like this. The Bar are rubbish at campaigning against this, basically because they probably know that they are on the wrong side of the argument.

The problem with having it 'all under one roof' is that you lose the objectivity that independent instructed counsel provides. I have seen this first hand; inhouse advocates advising favourably on the merits of a lengthy trial (and then conducting one), not because it is in the client's best interests but because it is what the client wants to hear and the firm is desperate to retain their continued custom. It's the client that loses out, whether it's because they end up paying far more in damages than they would in an easily negotiated settlement, or recieving an immediate custodial sentence instead of a suspended term.

[Kessler`]

The legal system in this country is still the envy of 'many other countries'. Furthermore, in those countries which 'flourish' without a divided legal system, it is unlikely that they have quite the same adversarial process as we enjoy in E & W

[chalks]

(Original post by Kessler`)
The problem with having it 'all under one roof' is that you lose the objectivity that independent instructed counsel provides. I have seen this first hand; inhouse advocates advising favourably on the merits of a lengthy trial (and then conducting one), not because it is in the client's best interests but because it is what the client wants to hear and the firm is desperate to retain their continued custom. It's the client that loses out, whether it's because they end up paying far more in damages than they would in an easily negotiated settlement, or recieving an immediate custodial sentence instead of a suspended term.

If that is the case, then the examples you have seen are firms and their lawyers in breach of their duties to their client and the Court. Retaining a split profession isn't the answer to this problem, it's making sure those firms comply with their duties.

As it happens, I am a supporter of the split profession. Simply because, as an ex-private practice solicitor and now a client, the split profession works well for the areas of work which I have been involved with.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Kessler`)
The problem with having it 'all under one roof' is that you lose the objectivity that independent instructed counsel provides. I have seen this first hand; inhouse advocates advising favourably on the merits of a lengthy trial (and then conducting one), not because it is in the client's best interests but because it is what the client wants to hear and the firm is desperate to retain their continued custom. It's the client that loses out, whether it's because they end up paying far more in damages than they would in an easily negotiated settlement, or recieving an immediate custodial sentence instead of a suspended term.

Come on

You know as well as I do that there are plenty of barristers who egg on their clients with supportive opinions only to go windy at the door of the court when the brief fee is pocketed.

Sit on the first Intercity train out of any of the London stations and you can hear the deals being stitched up between members of the bar with no client participation.

How many clients (usually when transferring instructions), when asked why they settled a case on poor terms, explain that it was because their barrister told them for the first time on the morning of the trial that they would lose? The solicitor, eyeing up a nice prof neg case against the previous firm, asks whether the barrister was new to the case, only to be told that he has been in it from the beginning.

[Kessler`]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Come on

You know as well as I do that there are plenty of barristers who egg on their clients with supportive opinions only to go windy at the door of the court when the brief fee is pocketed.

Sit on the first Intercity train out of any of the London stations and you can hear the deals being stitched up between members of the bar with no client participation.

How many clients (usually when transferring instructions), when asked why they settled a case on poor terms, explain that it was because their barrister told them for the first time on the morning of the trial that they would lose? The solicitor, eyeing up a nice prof neg case against the previous firm, asks whether the barrister was new to the case, only to be told that he has been in it from the beginning.

Maybe that is so, nulli, but I have never seen it. I am very young, however, so my experience is limited. Also, I have only really seen the above happen in criminal cases. I've also been involved in a case where the same sols (inc sol advs) represented co-defs who then proceeded to run a cut-throat defence. As far as I'm aware, they should have at least instructed independent counsel at that stage to avoid the danger of bias/appearance of bias. They didn't and one co-def was (rightly imho) very aggrieved since his throat-cutting co-def was a member of a crime family who were long-standing 'customers' of the sols firm.

I suppose we can both point to examples, and I'm sure there are bad eggs on both sides of the profession. I certainly don't want to exchange 'tit for tat' between sols and bazzas. However, at least at the criminal courts, isn't it worth preserving the split profession to prevent situations like the above?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Kessler`)
Maybe that is so, nulli, but I have never seen it. I am very young, however, so my experience is limited. Also, I have only really seen the above happen in criminal cases. I've also been involved in a case where the same sols (inc sol advs) represented co-defs who then proceeded to run a cut-throat defence. As far as I'm aware, they should have at least instructed independent counsel at that stage to avoid the danger of bias/appearance of bias. They didn't and one co-def was (rightly imho) very aggrieved since his throat-cutting co-def was a member of a crime family who were long-standing 'customers' of the sols firm.

I suppose we can both point to examples, and I'm sure there are bad eggs on both sides of the profession. I certainly don't want to exchange 'tit for tat' between sols and bazzas. However, at least at the criminal courts, isn't it worth preserving the split profession to prevent situations like the above?

I am not a criminal lawyer but the solicitors shouldn't have been acting in that case regardless of whether they had independent counsel. How do you advise at the police station, proof them etc?

I wonder if it was one of those funny solicitors chambers where the solicitors will practise like barristers, sharing overheads but not revenue and being effectively separate sole practitioners.

My lot reckon there is an art to picking the right co-defendant to represent.

[Kessler`]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am not a criminal lawyer but the solicitors shouldn't have been acting in that case regardless of whether they had independent counsel. How do you advise at the police station, proof them etc?

I wonder if it was one of those funny solicitors chambers where the solicitors will practise like barristers, sharing overheads but not revenue and being effectively separate sole practitioners.

My lot reckon there is an art to picking the right co-defendant to represent.

You would think they shouldn't be acting, but the cut-throat defence didn't appear until just after the PCMH. Further, there's a recent admin court decision on this (Towers v CCRC, if I'm not mistaken) which acknowledges that legal aid cuts and funding priorities mean that sols firms may have to represent co-defendants within the same firm. That same judgment also indicates that you really do need independent counsel in that type of situation, who is able to independently monitor any danger of bias. But, how likely is it that a local crim defence firm is going to leap to its feet and cut its fee in half, when they're in a far-flung crown court before HHJ Soporific who isn't aware of that same judgment? FAOD it was a fairly traditional regional firm, who have been taking on ex-BVC grads as paralegals for a few years, getting them to crossqualify and take HRA. As you might imagine, they're desperately grateful for getting their foot in the door! Sounds like a potent combination to me.

[Kessler`]

(Original post by nulli tertius)

My lot reckon there is an art to picking the right co-defendant to represent.

That made me chuckle!