Didn't see that one coming

Of all those big names brands claimed to have an interest in legal services identified in the run up to the so-called ‘Big Bang’ introduction of alternative business structures, no one spotted the legendary lorry magnate Eddie Stobart (with its distinctive green and yellow livery) creeping up in the fast lane.

The logistics business the Stobart Group last week launched a new service to ‘link members of the public and businesses direct to a barrister without needing to employ a solicitor’. ‘It is by some distance the most unexpected development so far in the post-Legal Services Act world,’ noted Legal Futures.

Quite; but it also makes wonderful sense.

Could there be a better way of assisting the Bar with its unfortunate image problem? Nothing cuts through all those old, tried and not entirely unfair clichés – you know, unapproachable, elitist, pompous etc - than the words ‘Eddie Stobart’.

In the context of the Legal Services Act 2007, ‘direct access’ to the Bar is a small but significant step in the direction of liberalization. It is only eight years since the Bar Council scrapped the centuries-old rule that litigants who wanted to instruct a barrister had to do so through a solicitor following pressure from the Office for Fair Trading. A year after Sir David Clementi began his review of regulation into legal services. 

By the way, Stobart Barristers (as they are known) have no ambitions to become an ABS. Instead, they will run under the 2004 public access regime. ‘We’ll give it to you straight,’ they promise. They are offering fixed-fees and a ‘pay-as-you-go’ model for litigation.

It is unsurprising - and welcome news for consumers - that new market entrants are ditching the hourly rate so beloved of lawyers, and so hated by clients. In a 2010 study (Shopping around: what consumers want from legal services, Jures) 2,000-plus consumers were asked for their preferred way to pay for legal services: fixed fee was the most popular option (48%), followed by no win no fee (where the lawyer takes the risk of losing the case) (38%). No surprises that only the tiniest minority (2%) wanted hourly rates.

The launch of Riverview Law earlier this year was called ‘the boldest-ever post-Legal Services Act move involving the Bar’. The idea behind Riverview is annual contracts for unlimited legal advice for every type of corporate client from SMEs to FTSE 100 companies (starting at just £200). At the forefront of the Riverview proposition is the Bar. Out of a team of some 75 lawyers, there are 43 barristers including 12 QCs. That heavy weight offering includes Richard Lissack QC, Riverview’s head of the business and international teams, and Jonathan Caplan QC.

Impressive but - for my money - the nation's favourite hauliers have pipped Riverview (backed by global law firm DLA Piper through the holding company LawVest). 
Trevor Howarth, legal director at Stobart Barristers, has said that because of the problems in legal aid and solicitors increasingly doing advocacy in-house, more barristers are ‘readily available’. ‘Consumers don’t know where to look or which barrister to pick, leaving many to still having to rely on the advice of their solicitor,’ he said. ‘But in doing so they are forced to pay significant fees. Our model cuts out waste and opens up access to a national panel of barristers that are selected for their ability to meet our clients’ needs.’

I wrote recently in this blog about the Co-op promising to bring affordable, fixed fees to divorcing couples. ‘Legal aid has provided a really important safety net for people over the last 50 years and that safety net is being pulled away,’ Christina Blacklaws, who joined the retailer from legal aid firm TV Edwards told me. As of April 2013 when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act comes into force, people will only be eligible for legal aid if there is evidence of domestic violence. ‘What does that say about our legal aid scheme?’ said Blacklaws. ‘Hopefully we will help to bridge the gap.’

We launched www.thejusticegap.com, an online magazine aimed at the public about the law and justice on October 6th – the day ABSs came into force. As Michael Mansfield QC puts it on our site, the ‘justice gap’ refers to the increasing section of the public too poor to afford a lawyer and not poor enough to qualify for legal aid.

One of the first articles we ran on its launch date was by David Edmonds, chair of the Legal Services Board. Edmonds gently reminded lawyers that ‘for all the legions of column inches’ devoted to the liberalisation in the legal press these reforms were ‘less about lawyers and more about consumers’.

‘We expect ABS to widen access to justice,’ he says. ‘The new competitive pressures and impetus towards innovation should increase the availability and reach of legal services.’ 
The realities of LASPO restrict access to the justice in fairly brutal ways; but it remains to be seen whether newly competitive pressures will meaningfully close that gap and whether private practice lawyers - as well as the new market entrants - rise to the challenge.