MARC BEAUMONT EXHORTS THE BSB TO SUPPORT THE MANAGERS
The Bar is braced for real change. The BSB proudly announces its revolutionary adoption of a scheme of new business practices. It is now designing new rules. Conception to creation is one thing. Implementation however, can kill the idea that spawned it. Let me explain why.
In 1990, I created a new business structure. It was revolutionary at the time. A London Barristers' Chambers outside Central London at Harrow on the Hill. But this organisation was unmanageable. This was in part because the Bar Council would not let me manage it. The Barristers we recruited had to be self-employed. Yet they expected all the benefits of a corporate organisation - work, publicity, administration, premises, profile and an income. I provided all this. But the necessary internal mechanisms of control were absent. Why ? Because the Bar Council would not let me manage the organisation properly. I was not permitted to put in place anything that impinged on the freedom of members to take everything on offer and then after a year or so, to decamp with all the work we had provided.
If the BSB truly desires to herald a new era of Bar entrepreneurship, it must not stifle creativity with oppressive rules or rules that require the group to be subjugated by the individual. The power balance in Chambers must shift to the managers. The illusory idea of Barristers being able to run free (ie: to run riot) within the organisation, must be examined and then circumscribed. True entrepreneurship requires the investment by courageous people of time, energy and money. These people drive groups forward. And it is these people who deserve the most protection. The new rules must ensure that if new business structures are to be encouraged, those taking risk are sufficiently protected. The era of the rapacious barrister or groups of barristers hatching plots in dark corners of an office conceived and created by someone else, must end.
One key change would be the chance for Barristers to employ other Barristers. A contract of employment would contain, expressly or impliedly, a strict duty ot fidelity to the employer. Conspire to destroy Chambers, or to usurp those who gave you your chance at the Bar and you will be out. The BSB should stand firm behind the managers if it is truly to herald a new era of business development at the Bar. The idea that Barristers who arrive in Chambers with nothing but a Law Degree should enjoy the freedom and status of well established entities, has had its day.
Another critical aspect is the idea, common in business, that a business has a legitimate interest in protecting its clientele and confidential client information. I tried to introduce non-solicitation agreements in my Chambers in the early 1990s. The Bar Council would not allow this. How will the BSB encourage people to take risk if they cannot protect their client base in the way that any other business can ?
It will be interesting to see how the new rules are developed. However, I doubt that those who drive new business forward will be protected sufficiently to encourage substantial change. Certainly, after 13 years at the helm of a Chambers, I regard the traditional business model of a Barristers' Chambers as so fundamentally flawed, that I would have no interest in starting an ABS or LDP without better contractual and regulatory protection for my investment.
See, its good to finally see somebody applying some reasonable logic to this. Thanks.
Posted by: danzel | 05/11/2011 at 11:44 AM