Consultation Paper on Changes to the Guidance on Returning Instructions Deadline for responses: 25 April 2014 Introduction The new Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook came into force on 6 January 2014. A new development in the regulation of barristers, the Handbook is built around the principle of outcomes focused regulation. Less prescriptive than the Code of Conduct that preceded it, the Handbook places more focus on the required outcome of the BSB’s regulatory arrangements, rather than attempting to define how a barrister should act in every possible situation. The rules and associated guidance are not only therefore a key tool for barristers, but also ensure that clients and members of the public are aware of what they can expect when instructing a barrister and can understand what action can be taken in the event of improper behaviour by that barrister. Shortly before the introduction of the Handbook, the BSB considered the issue of returning instructions where there were substantive changes to the basis of a barrister’s remuneration. Responding in particular to the Legal Aid Agency’s Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) contract changes the BSB issued a policy statement, dated 25 November 2013, clarifying the rules and guidance applicable to barristers considering returning instructions following a change in their remuneration. This drew on the BSB’s existing guidance that a change in remuneration would amount to a withdrawal of instructions by the client, meaning that a barrister was entitled to withdraw from the case without regard to the potential detriment to the client. Whilst issuing that guidance, a commitment was made to consult fully on future changes to the guidance on this topic following the Handbook’s launch. This was because the issues raised highlighted some wider risks to the regulatory objectives that may not have been adequately addressed by existing guidance. In particular, the Board felt that there was a risk of undue detriment to clients, who through no fault of their own found themselves without legal representation, for example because a third party such as the Legal Aid Agency had changed the rate of remuneration for the barrister. In such cases, the previous guidance was perhaps too a blunt instrument that may not have taken into account all of the relevant regulatory issues. This consultation invites views on updated guidance on returning instructions.
Consultation Paper on Changes to the Guidance on Returning Instructions Deadline for responses: 25 April 2014 Introduction The new Bar Standards Board (BSB) Handbook came into force on 6 January 2014. A new development in the regulation of barristers, the Handbook is built around the principle of outcomes focused regulation. Less prescriptive than the Code of Conduct that preceded it, the Handbook places more focus on the required outcome of the BSB’s regulatory arrangements, rather than attempting to define how a barrister should act in every possible situation. The rules and associated guidance are not only therefore a key tool for barristers, but also ensure that clients and members of the public are aware of what they can expect when instructing a barrister and can understand what action can be taken in the event of improper behaviour by that barrister. Shortly before the introduction of the Handbook, the BSB considered the issue of returning instructions where there were substantive changes to the basis of a barrister’s remuneration. Responding in particular to the Legal Aid Agency’s Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) contract changes the BSB issued a policy statement, dated 25 November 2013, clarifying the rules and guidance applicable to barristers considering returning instructions following a change in their remuneration. This drew on the BSB’s existing guidance that a change in remuneration would amount to a withdrawal of instructions by the client, meaning that a barrister was entitled to withdraw from the case without regard to the potential detriment to the client. Whilst issuing that guidance, a commitment was made to consult fully on future changes to the guidance on this topic following the Handbook’s launch. This was because the issues raised highlighted some wider risks to the regulatory objectives that may not have been adequately addressed by existing guidance. In particular, the Board felt that there was a risk of undue detriment to clients, who through no fault of their own found themselves without legal representation, for example because a third party such as the Legal Aid Agency had changed the rate of remuneration for the barrister. In such cases, the previous guidance was perhaps too a blunt instrument that may not have taken into account all of the relevant regulatory issues. This consultation invites views on updated guidance on returning instructions.
bsb_consultation_document_-_changes_to_the_guidance_for_returning_instructions_-_march_2014.docx