Direct access shouldn't divide the professions

I strongly believe there is a time and place for direct access. In an article The Times has suggested that direct access could halve the cost of divorce, which is untrue. It also suggested that solicitors make money out of getting very junior people to handle divorce work. We know this is not the case.

Direct access not particularly new and not many chambers are offering it yet, but I recently tried very hard to find a barrister to represent grandparents (not my clients) in a very complex High Court case on a direct access basis, and was unable to. They were not eligible for legal aid and had never instructed solicitors but desperately needed representation in court. The case was to last five days and the cheapest quote I got for direct access representation for them was £15k + VAT. I should say, it was not a divorce or financial case and it was at short notice, but I expect a lot of direct access requests will be short notice.

Direct access will become more important as the legal aid cuts bite and I can think of a number of circumstances where I would recommend to a potential client that they use direct access rather than instruct us, but not for a divorce.

A divorce (as opposed to the financial arrangements arising out of a divorce - which is what I think The Times actually meant) is a mostly administrative process. It should not require a court hearing at all in ordinary circumstances and the most complex aspects of it are getting the divorce petition right and ensuring service takes place. We have never pretended that most divorces are complicated but what can get complicated is resolving the consequential financial arrangements.

It is true that in complex financial proceedings a client is likely to save some money by having only a solicitor or only a barrister and doing a proportion of the work themselves. However, I do not think it would halve the costs of these proceedings and I do not think that in the majority of situations it would provide the client with what they believe they need.

In terms of the costs - the barrister featured by The Times apparently stated that costs could be far cheaper because, amongst other things, barristers' overheads are lower than solicitors. However, she charges £300 plus VAT per hour and our most senior solicitors and partners do not charge that so in fact, instructing us on a simple hourly rate comparison, would always be cheaper.

The article also refers to 'two sets of fees' for clients who use a solicitor and barrister. However, I do not believe that most solicitors and barristers duplicate work so I would suggest they are fees for different work and the client will only save the fees of a the solicitor if they undertake the work of the solicitor.

In terms of whether clients need the services of a solicitor to undertake the representation that a barrister cannot do under direct access, such as corresponding with the other side, negotiating a settlement before proceedings are issued, undertaking or referring to mediation if appropriate and so on, these are not simply administrative tasks as suggested in the article and, in our firm at least, are not carried out by junior members of the team. We are all members of Resolution and follow the Code of Practice and, in doing so, we manage to avoid issuing proceedings in many cases - which must, in itself, save costs.

Of course, there is an alternative route that avoids the 'two sets of fees' and provides the client with the support of having a solicitor - instruct a solicitor who carries out their own court advocacy. This also ensures that the person the client deals with on the phone every day, who writes their letters and sees them in the office, is the person who attends court on their behalf.

I do not think there is one solution that suits every client and I think that is important that solicitors and barristers work together, rather than publicly criticising each other, to ensure the best service for clients. As a department we have very strong links with a number of barristers' chambers and we will continue to foster those relationships and refer them direct access work where appropriate.