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.
Legal Services Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bledisloe
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Services Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c1280 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:23:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394998
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394998
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394998