Practice Toolset

This year’s Bar Conference took place on 10th November.  Counsel editorial board members Toby Craig, Nichola Higgins, Chris McWatters and David Wurtzel report  

Reaching the Tip of the Pyramid
Toby Craig reviews Lady Justice Rafferty’s keynote speech and the Chairman’s annual address  

“It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single professional in possession of a good practice must be in want of a better one.” Alluding to Austen, so opened Lady Justice Rafferty’s hugely well received keynote address to the 27th Annual Bar Conference. 

The DSP is to the Armed Forces what the DPP is to civilians. Bruce Houlder QC DL, the first Director of Service Prosecutions, reflects upon his years in the role.  

In May 2008, after some 39 years at the Bar, I took up the challenge to create a new prosecuting authority for the Armed Services, and thus became the first Director of Service Prosecutions (DSP). The role was created by the Armed Forces Act 2006 which wrought significant changes to the service justice system. I am glad I took the leap. I have worked alongside intelligent, well motivated servicemen and women, and have been left with an enormous respect for the role they play in support of Service law and discipline, in the advisory sector, on operations, and as prosecutors. Initial difficulties and some avoidable obstructions were soon swept away, and a well respected joint prosecuting authority has emerged. 

Do the Right Thing is a charity through which disabled people take part in the training of others. Graham Hopkins explains how the Bar could benefit when training its members in how to deal with vulnerable witnesses.  

With some cracking one-liners and visual jokes, the Dublin director Damien O’Donnell’s 2004 comedy-drama “Inside I’m Dancing ” makes a powerful plea for equality for disabled people in society. There are undoubtedly convincing and strong performances from the lead actors. But therein also lay the film’s controversy. As BBC critic Neil Smith pointed out, O’Donnell, by “casting able-bodied actors as his wheelchair-driving protagonists unavoidably weakens his argument.” 

From January 2013, as QASA (Crime) starts to roll out across the country, judges will be the evaluators of the advocacy in Crown Courts. Here,  Counsel looks at the training the judiciary is receiving and the criteria it will have to apply.  

An essential element of any quality assurance scheme is confidence in the integrity of the process. When the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (Crime) (‘QASA’) begins to roll out in January 2013, all Crown Court advocates who do trials will be evaluated by the judiciary. How can the judges, given the role of assessing the quality of advocacy in their courts, produce results which are consistent and based on the advocacy itself? To answer that question, and before the scheme goes ‘live’ on any circuit, every judge who has agreed to take part must undergo a seminar training. 

This year’s conference will be focusing on the Bar’s need to adapt to its changing environment. Alison Padfield, Bar Conference Chairman, previews the event and its speakers... 

The Bar Conference, which will take place on Saturday, November 10th, is the largest event in the Bar’s calendar and provides an opportunity for all parts of the Bar to come together and discuss current issues of importance to the profession. This year’s theme is The Modern Bar – Accessible, Adaptable and Relevant. We will again be at the Hilton Metropole Hotel in London, but with a difference – this year, all of the conference activities take place in the same area, thus dispensing with the need to migrate from one wing of the hotel to the other between sessions. 

The Legal Services Board will not baulk as it strives to drive the legal services market forward and reinforce the regulatory objectives, says LSB chairman, David Edmonds 

Counsel has invited me to reflect on the Legal Services Board’s (LSB’s) first three years, in the context of the Ministry of Justice’s recent triennial review of the LSB and Office for Legal Complaints.  In doing so, I was provoked to think about how the Bar, represented by the Bar Council, has dealt with the post-Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) landscape. 

Nick Avis outlines the possible benefits and drawbacks to barristers of practising through a limited company 

There has been a lot of discussion around the future of the Bar and the changes that have emanated from the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007). Some aspects of these changes are dependent on the regulation of entities offering certain legal services.  The Bar Standards Board (BSB) recently issued a further consultation document on the subject of entity regulation. The consultation closed on 29 June.  It is understood that the BSB intends to put structures in place so that it can regulate: 

Matthew Nicklin outlines what BSB regulation could entail for those seeking to form advocacy-focused alternative business structures, legal disciplinary practices and barrister-only entities 

The final stage of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) consultation on entity regulation –New handbook and entity regulation – closed on 28 June 2012. After working its way through the responses, a report will be published by the BSB in due course. 

David Wurtzel casts the spotlight on a new niche legal disciplinary practice which specialises in private prosecutions for fraud and corporate crime 

Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM) has been operating since March 2012 in the niche area of representing clients who wish to bring private prosecutions for fraud, counterfeiting and corporate crime. At the moment they say they are the only such firm – but they do not expect things to remain that way for long. As a legal disciplinary practice (LDP), the directors consist of a solicitor (dual-qualified in Australia), a barrister who spent nine years in the Government Legal Service (GLS), and a barrister who works within the company while continuing his self-employed practice at the Bar. The company has no relationship with his chambers. 

In the second part of his feature on information security, Graham Cunningham looks at the guidelines regarding physical material.  

Last month, I wrote about your responsibilities under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), concerning electronic processing of personal information. It was designed for your protection and, most especially to avoid you having to give undertakings to the Information Commissioner or pay fines.  This month, I want to concentrate on physical material; ie, the paper in the lever arch files that makes up the average brief.   Generally speaking, the sort of physical material you get in the average brief does not come within DPA 1998.