Should firms and chambers merge?

The Bar is frequently
seen as a traditional institution, one that is sometimes slow to move with the times. Its future is now under something of a cloud.

The idea of chambers teaming up with firms of solicitors seems a probable evolution, allowing many young lawyers more hope regarding their future prospects.

Professional mark

I qualified as a solicitor in 2011, having previously studied to be a barrister. I was called to the Bar in 2008. Nowadays, it is
so difficult for young, newly qualified barristers to make their mark on the profession.

When I studied the Bar Vocational Course (as it was called then) in 2008, only four students out of a class of about 50 had vocational traineeships (‘pupillages’ to you and me) to go to by the end of the course.
A handful of my classroom colleagues went on to find themselves pupillages within
a couple of years, but the vast majority did not and never have.

Some, like me, decided to cross-qualify and became solicitors. Some abandoned the legal profession altogether. Sadly, many of my classmates, whichever way they ventured, were left burdened with debt.

More in-house roles would hopefully provide more jobs for those qualifying as barristers. There are a limited number of chambers in the country and
an even more limited number
of pupillages available as self-employed individuals. Barristers working in chambers are also, in many ways, in direct competition with each other.

Those who make it all the way through law school and the selection process of pupillage go on to face further challenges as they build up their own practices: they must ensure they have sufficient work coming in, can cover their clerks’ fees and their rent to chambers, along with many other outgoings.

This is a problem all
self-employed people face
of course, but life as a
self-employed barrister is certainly more of a risk than working in-house, when you take into account the recession and the recent significant cuts to legal aid. Working together with a firm of solicitors means barristers are more likely to
have a guaranteed wage
every month as well as guaranteed briefs.

Barristers frequently have their first conference with a client at court on the day of the hearing. While they will have had time to digest their brief and read the papers, this is often a very diluted version
of the case as a whole and can leave them with no more than
a shallow understanding of the issues. While barristers are used to this tradition, it can be limiting for them when preparing and presenting
the case.

It can also be very unnerving for the client, leaving them wondering why their solicitor, who knows their case inside out, is not doing the talking on their behalf before the judge.

Teaming up

If things do change and barristers and solicitors join forces, the former could, in theory, have access at any point to the client’s full file, allowing them to fully explore the case, thus providing more reassurance for the client that their representative knows everything they ought to.

Barristers would be more readily available to support solicitors in their preparation
of cases, giving them guidance on the best approach to take from earlier on in the process to ensure it is moulded in the
way they think best for the
final hearing.

There are risks to the profession if solicitors and barristers merge. Long-standing chambers who may not wish to change may lose out in the long run as solicitors are far more likely to ask in-house counsel
to deal with their cases rather than instructing outsiders.

There is also the potential
for the two specialisms to start blurring into one another, depriving practitioners of a more clearly defined expertise.

Closer ties are all for the
good and would certainly benefit the practice of law. It
will be fascinating to see how things develop. I have been lucky enough to observe
both careers at first hand.

Ultimately, I decided
that I preferred life as an employed solicitor. SJ

Katie Kilburn is a solicitor at Stowe Family Law