Do we need barristers' chambers anymore?

During the course of the last year, I have been asked by a number of senior members of the Criminal Bar what I thought the effect of cuts and consolidation on the solicitors' branch of the profession would be on the Bar. The prevailing view at the Bar was one with which I did not agree.

That view was that the Bar was instructed more often by smaller firms of solicitors and, in fact, the larger firms were retaining a lot of their advocacy in-house. So, the story continued, it logically followed that fewer larger providers meant that there would be less work for the Bar.

In fact, this is a point on which I agreed with Mr Grayling. In one of his more assured political performances in front of the select committee last year (you know - the one where he announced the abandonment of the 'no client choice' idea), he opined that fewer larger providers facing cuts would have to reduce fixed costs and would therefore be more pre-disposed to sourcing advocacy on an agency basis - the more so when a higher court advocate's (HCA's) duty slot is an irrelevance under the future contracting model.

This is, of course, the business model of the Bar. There was some evidence in support of this. Both T V Edwards and Kaim Todner, two of London's largest providers, largely abandoned the strategy of employed HCAs during the last 12 months. The fixed costs (even with the duty slot attached) were too high.

Nevertheless, it is true that the Bar should have cause for concern. HCAs have adapted to their environment quickly. Many HCAs now provide advocacy services on an agency basis to small firms and large firms - with the advantage to those firms that they retain some of the AGF (advocates' graduated fee). The Bar have been characteristically sanctimonious about this 'disgraceful' practice. However, it is no more or no less than their equivalent of paying rent to be a tenant at chambers.

The overwhelming commercial pressure for firms to retain some financial benefit from advocacy has to date been held back by the fact that it is indisputably still the case that, on average, the better advocates are still members of the independent Bar rather than solicitor HCAs.

I have little doubt the quality gap between solicitor advocates and barristers is closing - although there is some considerable distance to go with regards the specialist and senior Bar. I suppose it might be summed up on the basis that, because of the skills and traditions associated with the Bar, there is (or was) a respect for the Bar that in large part preserved the natural order.

However, when the leadership of the Bar takes such seismic steps to put clear blue water between the two branches of the profession, by striking a deal with the justice secretary while the solicitor's profession was not aware they were involved in any such discussions - then we all have to reassess where we stand.

Until now, relationships between firms of solicitors have been relatively rare. The Bar was an easy outlet for advocacy that could not be covered in house. Mistrust and often misplaced concerns regarding the quality of other firms' HCAs were part of the invisible force field protecting the Bar. This has been spectacularly punctured. It is likely that cooperation between firms to provide advocacy services will increase in the next 12 months.

For individual barristers and, even, chambers is it not time to reflect on what it is that truly sets barristers apart as an independent profession? To my mind a set of chambers consists of a building, some IT & administrative infrastructure, an identity and some people who have been trained in specific skills and have honed these through hundreds of years of experience. Which of these are truly important? Or, to put it another way, when the pressure is so great, that something has to give - what is that going to be?

Surely the building has to go? Being a criminal barrister is a remote-working profession. The vast bulk of the work is conducted at court, can be prepped at home and conferenced in spaces at court or within solicitors' offices.

What's with the IT and admin infrastructure? Do barristers really need this so that my admin person can email your clerk to give you the brief? In this 21st21st- century world, we know that an identity can be 'virtualised'. There is even a famous name from the Bar which has a virtual chambers: - Tooks Court.

The best interests of clients are served by the best advocates being available on a commercially sustainable footing - whether they be are HCAs or barristers. Is it not time that barristers started focusing on what is important to their profession and contracting directly with solicitors rather than sinking 20 per cent rent into redundant architecture and infrastructure? Is that not the best way to preserve the best of the Bar, benefit solicitors and provide the best service to clients?