In the services industry, the number of one star reviews can be the difference between success and failure. Research shows that consumers who have a bad experience are twice to three times more likely to write an angry review online than those who had a great experience are to post a glowing ecommendation.
This fact does not seem to be lost on chambers. During the UK research process, I lost count of the number of instances a clerk or barrister asked if we had received any wholly negative comments from their referees. The truth is, it’s rare for us to receive the kind of overtly damning feedback you might read about a business on Google, Yelp! or Facebook.
Sure, some responses can be damning with faint praise, but on the whole solicitors and in-house counsel offer largely constructive comments on the service provided by chambers. That being said, a number of trends emerged in this year’s feedback that warrant further investigation.
Access to counsel If the responses to this year’s research are anything to go by, the days when clerks were the gatekeepers to counsel are long gone. I was surprised to see the numbers of law firm partners who, when asked for their views on the service and the clerks’ room, said they had none as they ‘go direct to the barrister’.
While not so great for eliciting feedback on one of the most important functions of chambers, a direct line to their barrister of choice is what solicitors now expect. Of course, this is not uniform and there are plenty of queries that cannot be dealt with by counsel, but it does highlight the changing nature of the solicitor-barrister dynamic. Solicitors want counsel to be truly a part of the team, rather than, as one practitioner suggested of certain silks, ‘an ethereal presence locked away in an ivory tower’.
This lack of interaction between solicitors and barristers is not limited to those in the upper echelons of either profession; it is also an issue in the junior ranks. Chambers should not shy away from introducing law firms to the next generation of talented advocates. More than a few solicitors said they are keen to trial ‘the next stars of the Bar’, but instead are offered ‘the same old counsel again and again’. ‘We want to know who is the future of chambers
before everyone else does,’ said one practitioner.
How much?!
Although it is widely acknowledged that the British don’t like talking about money, you would not know it reading the remarks about counsel fees during the latest round of research.
‘There are sets in the Temple area with glowing reputations, newly renovated offices and experienced barristers I think highly of – but they have such outrageously priced briefs I simply do not have the time or inclination to waste my instructions there,’ said one solicitor.
It is difficult to produce an objective analysis of every fee rate criticism, especially when such criticism comes from some of the most profitable and largest law firms on the planet, but it is obvious that those sets willing to be pragmatic, competitive or ‘commercial’ with their fees are likely to receive repeat instructions.
And while every barrister hopes their clerk will fight hard to get
the best possible deal for them, a less than commercial approach to fee discussions can be counterproductive on counsel’s practice, according to numerous instructing solicitors. ‘At times, there can be a bit of “creep” on fees – the clerks may come back and try to ask for additional fees on matters which should be covered by the brief and refresher fees,’ complained one solicitor. ‘Fee negotiations can be painful,’ said another of an Inner Temple-based chambers.
‘They need to appreciate better the pressures on solicitors in terms of giving fixed fees to clients that cannot be flexed,’ a different partner opined of a leading Chancery set.
‘Chambers tends to be more expensive on fees sometimes and it could be more proactive in discussing and agreeing increases to fee estimates in advance, rather than after the event,’ was the criticism levelled at one tax set.
Very few chambers escaped criticism over the late production of fee notes. Indeed, next to the fees charged, the lateness of fee notes was solicitors’ biggest gripe.
Show me the money!
Fee notes could be produced quicker, particularly in the legal aid arena and inter-parties cases, ‘where up-to-date costs information needs to be available on our files’, said one legal aid lawyer. In fact legal aid billing is a major clash point between some firms and their otherwise favourite chambers.
‘The clerks are very helpful and responsive, however, there seems to be a slight weakness on the understanding of legal aid billing,’ said one referee of a regional set, while another remarked: ‘The only issue I have ever had is in relation to counsel’s fee notes once a case has concluded and is being dealt with by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). As counsel’s bills have to be assessed first this can often hold up our bills.’
‘The costing procedures are not as slick as the client-facing clerks and counsel experience,’ suggested another. ‘It can often be time consuming and lengthy and it would perhaps be helpful if there could be a better understanding of the LAA online costing system to speed the process up.’
One London-based solicitor commented: ‘Chambers could work better when it comes to managing the costs limit in legal aid cases as some barristers not only appear to overcharge for the work done but claim high uplifts which necessitate repeated applications to the LAA for costs increases for the overall case.’
While noting how a large London set has recently expanded its back office support staff, one solicitor remarked: ‘They seem to have a lot of junior admin people who send tetchy emails chasing payment – but demonstrate a lack of understanding as to the way in which barristers work is billed and the delays inherent in getting legal aid costs paid.’
Providing one eyebrow-raising anecdote, another solicitor remarked: ‘I was very annoyed when the clerks (without contacting me first or even sending me a fee note for more than 12 months) applied for a payment on account from the LAA claiming the majority of the costs limit on the legal aid certificate and leaving nothing for us.’
The legal aid divide
Issues with billing is not the only criticism firms level at chambers in the legal aid sphere, however. Those barristers and their chambers which are ‘approachable and committed to’ legal aid work received effusive praise from instructing firms. Solicitors also expressed admiration for those barristers willing to work pro bono ‘when justice requires action’ or when legal aid had not yet been extended to cover counsel instruction.
Of course, it was clear from speaking with firms that they do not expect counsel to work for free, and it is widely acknowledged that the legal aid rates imposed by the government are unfair, to say the least. Of one leading London criminal set, it was said: ‘Through no real fault of their own many excellent counsel are having to do less legal aid defence and do more prosecution, regulatory and other work because, economically, defence work is less and less viable.’
This is equally true for those practising in the regions where, highlighting the presence of advice deserts, one solicitor admitted ‘it is now quite difficult to find good housing counsel prepared to work at legal aid rates’. However, it was also obvious that some solicitors are frustrated with those chambers that have seemingly turned their back on publicly funded work and now treat it as ‘a nuisance’.
Asked how several family sets could improve their service, three different solicitors responded: ‘[Increase] the availability of counsel willing to undertake legal aid for private children and finance cases’; ‘take on more legal aid work’; and ‘be more legal aid friendly’.
Perhaps more alarmingly, a fourth family practitioner griped: ‘There have been occasions where a pupil has been offered as the only counsel available the moment the clerk becomes aware it is legal aid matter. This is deeply frustrating and disappointing, when other chambers provide the Rolls-Royce of service and care to my firm.’
Hello, welcome to chambers
As former UK Bar editor Hayley Eustace highlighted last year, the importance of friendly front-of-house staff should never be underestimated. Unsolicited market feedback from the 2017 research revealed receptionists to be the unsung heroes in chambers; that first smiling face that can put a stressed, overworked solicitor or nervous client at ease with a personal greeting.
The unexpected trend of solicitors and clients commenting on the talents of chambers’ receptions continued into 2018. The same names seen 12 months earlier were once again evident – 2 Hare Court’s Judith Taylor; Linda Evans at 5 Essex Court; Six Pump Court’s Debbie Eggleton – but others have also come to the fore.
Selborne’s reception team was praised as ‘one of the finest we’ve come across’, according one client, while One Pump Court received praise from one public law centre for its ‘brilliant’ reception and admin staff. Elsewhere, Hardwicke’s Angela Perez was described as ‘fantastic’ and praise was also heaped on 12 King’s Bench Walk’s Tracey Oliver, who is described as ‘a superstar’. Not every chambers enjoys the luxury of a full-time reception team, but even if yours does, then don’t assume your work is done by planting a warm body in a seat. For every positive comment received about a set’s receptionists we received an equal number of negative remarks, too.
‘The amount of information requested by the reception can sometimes be unnecessary,’ said one instructing solicitor. ‘The reception team could be a little less challenging when putting through calls,’ said another. ‘Their reception and phone service has slightly deteriorated of late,’ lamented a third.
More than one solicitor criticised the ‘lack of friendliness’ and need for ‘a greater presence’ at two separate sets in particular, while the telephone manner of the team at one leading Chancery set ‘has little to be desired!’, according to the remarks of one client.
Can we use your facilities?
For some solicitors, getting away from their desks can be a real novelty, for others it is a complete headache. Either way, if a solicitor needs to come into chambers, then you had better make sure you have all the mod cons
they expect.
The need for numerous, and ideally sound-proofed, conference suits, as
well as good wifi, were often cited by partners keen not to miss a single
six-minute block of billable time.
If in doubt, feed them
There are three final rules when it comes to caring for solicitors: (1) no bright light, (2) don’t get them wet, and (3) never feed them after midnight, no matter how much they beg. Wait, no, that’s Gremlins. Although, having said that it’s probably not a bright idea – pun intended – to shine a light in their eyes, drench them in water, or – more pointedly – fail to feed them.
For solicitors, a lack of suitable refreshments during lengthy cons is certainly, if not a black mark against a set, then an area they would appreciate improvement in. I admit to exhibiting some surprise at the number of solicitors from different firms whose only constructive criticism was ‘chambers could do with a better biscuit selection’.
One practitioner, although happy with the current confectionery on offer, suggested ‘some Party Rings or Jammie Dodgers for the victory celebrations!’ Indeed, some sets have gone beyond the humble coffee and biscuit to offer a variable cornucopia of refreshments. ‘They even put on the best sandwiches at lunchtime!’ enthused one excitable solicitor.
So there you have it. If all else fails, stuff your solicitor with Jammie Dodgers and they’ll be loyal for life. Maybe. It’s probably best to work on everything else first, though, just in case.