Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Viscount Bledisloe (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Services Bill [HL].


Legal Services Bill [HL]

My Lords, I make two points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. First, the comparison with financial institutions really is not right. In so far as the buyer is concerned, this burden will fall primarily on those who practise in the less well remunerated fields such as criminal law and family law and primarily on the younger members of the profession who have to deal with the more difficult and unreasonable clients. They are sole practitioners and would have to find those costs out of their own pockets. Secondly, there is the very important difference that if a nasty client who may cause trouble comes along, a financial institution can say, ““I am sorry, I do not want to do your work””. The poor unfortunate barrister, according to the cab-rank rule, has to take on the work even if he knows that the previous six people who acted for this client have all had complaints made against them, and that he is absolutely doomed to a complaint unless by very remarkable chance he happens to win. There he is, he takes it on because the rules say that he has to, and then he is landed with a bill for costs as a thank you for doing so.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c1280 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Costs Legal profession Fees and charges Standards Regulation Legal Services Board Office for Legal Complaints Alternative business structures
Legislation
Legal Services Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk