Willing and enabled

For the majority of professionals at the Bar, 6 October 2011 passed with minor interruptions '“ except perhaps for those keen to know who would be the first ABS to be approved by the regulators. As it turns out the most widely discussed potentials for the Bar are focused on three things: direct (or public) access, ABSs and the block contract/merged sets vs specialist sets models.

As an optimist I've strived to gather around those looking to take advantage of the Legal Services Act, particularly opportunities for the Bar and those who support chambers, at all ends of the food chain. I've been a guest at meetings surrounding potential ABSs and have spoken long and hard to those advising interested parties through the process. Barristers are few and far between at these talks and, too often, the profile and input of chambers is not being considered, apart from occasional investments by individual barristers.

At the end of September, I sat with a claims management company '“ outfits chomping at the bit to take up the ABS model in order to outlast the proposed referral fee ban '“ among others to discuss a potential model for moving forward. I was a guest rather than an active member, but it was revealing to hear how little chambers are getting involved in these discussions from an early stage and also what the benefits might be to those who do. Barristers' chambers appear to be waiting in the sidelines to see where their model and services will fit in; however, that isn't to say steps aren't being taken.

Opportunities for the Bar, which is traditionally a referral profession, have clearly increased in terms of business models, but the willingness hasn't seemed to transpire. The introduction of BarMark '“ a kitemark for barristers' chambers in terms of setting objectives to improve and maintain management, efficiency, client services and innovating business excellence '“ has been given to only 40 sets across England and Wales. The annual renewal assessments focus on business development and barrister engagement as strongly as clerking and client services. However, it is still perceived in BarMark that the role of the barrister in terms of service remit remains the same (some sets may have sidestepped this quality mark as it lacks client awareness and the kind of profile that Lexcel has for solicitors).

Direct access

In the case of direct access (a perceivably precarious opportunity for the Bar as many fear the impact on solicitor/client relationships), the Bar Council course has seen a notable take-up from chambers across England and Wales. Having sat the course last December (before barristers were given the go-ahead to litigate) I feel that while barristers are being given the tools to get their own work, the culture shift required for chambers to do this efficiently and effectively is a matter for barristers to work on. How many people join the Bar, even today, to client-manage themselves as well as market their services direct to lay clients? The number of chambers taking the direct access course may be significant; however, the number of headlines written about successful direct access models whereby this will fund the future for barristers are less, if at all, evident.

Return on investment

Don't get me wrong '“ direct access and its younger, feistier cousin, ABSs, are fantastic opportunities for chambers when steered under the right management and with widespread enthusiasm by members. But it seems that the challenges are the same for the Bar as they are for solicitors: to ensure the business deploys the best practice/set management model, skills, business development and engagement/investment. One key challenge to marketing direct access to the general public is for barristers to understand what it is people and businesses want from legal services. Is it the knowledge (generally assumed) or is it prompt replies, added value services or cheaper legal fees?

But there is also the question of return on investment for barristers looking at widespread direct access and ABSs. The combination of independence, work-life balance, autonomy and variety is an appealing reward for members of the Bar '“ a selling point for chambers when attracting tenants. ROI isn't simply about new business, it's about people. On the flip side, the commercial sector also has to attract people to work and develop businesses, so it's a question of evolution.

ROI is also a key element for those looking into the ABS model. The benefits for solicitors are investment opportunities and expansion. Are these attractive ROIs for chambers investigating these models? Or are ABSs a way to maintain sources of work in a niche market? Administrative costs may well increase in the formation and running of an ABS, which would theoretically have to come out of the general contribution '“ including marketing. Back-office costs at Civitas Law have already been streamlined efficiently. It is a paperless chambers run on a hot-desking mentality, with a focus on front-of-house facilities, leaving room for investment in other areas. ROI is an essential consideration for those looking to the ABS model as members will be expecting real value in a model shift. The Bar is better placed to wait and see what happens with the ABS market, compared to solicitors, but I don't think many would advise a flock-like mentality to creating ABSs, nor for barristers to put their heads in the sand because 'it's not the done thing'.

Specialist v block contract sets

Those leading change in chambers require the strategic and visionary nous of the corporate world and for barristers to allow those with the skills to lead their sets forward. This is already happening. Barristers chambers (on the whole) are already facing the changing market, and are making the decision to be either specialist sets offering niche experts (such as Civitas Law) or larger-scale sets looking for volume contracts '“ the latter often merging to do so, as in the case of St Philips and St Johns Buildings Chambers.

All three sets mentioned were invited to lead a seminar on the future of the Bar at the Bar Council, Chancery Lane, this summer. It became clear that some delegates felt the culture of the Bar prevented change '“ especially within London. Those on the panel, including myself, felt that this view is generally thrown from those stuck behind the mahogany desk. Sets with well-documented success in terms of ProcureCos (although many feel this is a buzzword for existing practices), specialist models, those attracting widespread contracts and those offering direct access, have one thing in common: clear leadership and visionaries business planning and devolving strategic activities.

Whether this be an experienced and visionary chief executive/director employed to lead chambers, or similar working parallel with a tight, committed management board (as in the case of Civitas Law which has three elected barristers appointed to run chambers) '“ a smaller, flexible and proactive management system has the ability to action decisions quicker.

The deployment of such management models in some chambers suggests their members are fully engaged '“ reinforced with effective internal communication systems and engagement in the changes ahead. The chambers of the future are being led with the skills, commitment and ability to adapt quickly in light of the opportunities; they are also those with a brand, profile and product ready to take to market in a whole new way.

The road ahead

The knowledge and expertise of barristers isn't enough to compete, whatever the challenge or opportunity ahead. It's essential for sets to know exactly what the clients expect out of a contract tender '“ which requires proactive meetings and discussions with the organisation, rather than simply filling out the form. I expect that there will be similar requirements arising from ABS requests for panel barristers, and even more so as those we need to convince are accountants, former claims managers and private sector investors, as well as solicitors.

It's worth noting the growth of a dedicated business development role in chambers. A number of sets outsource their public relations and marketing elements to companies in the private sector, which works well if managed effectively to ensure tactics are tied into the business plan. However, this needs to be backed up with internal engagement, client relationship management and market awareness of the potential growth areas for new ABSs/volume contracts or direct access work as well as how to pitch chambers.

There is also scope for new entrants to the Bar to be able to show more than an understanding of the commercial development of chambers, either through a new educational element on the BVC or during pupillage. Progressive sets may already be looking for those with the valuable ability to help drive and invest time in business development to leverage an increased profile and work for chambers as a whole.