 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
As indicated above, one member expressed reservations about Recommendation 124
in the following terms :-
"1.
I have reservations about this Recommendation.
2.
The stated objective of enabling the lay client through the solicitor to be informed of
the barrister's charges in advance can be achieved under the present system. What is
required is for the solicitor to ascertain in advance the barrister's hourly rate and his
estimate of the charges to be incurred for any particular piece of work.
3.
With the implementation of Recommendation
123, it should be expected that any
solicitor intending to instruct a barrister will almost as a matter of course obtain the
necessary information from the barrister before instructions are given.
4.
There is no suggestion that unless an obligation contained in this Recommendation is
imposed on the barrister, the present system is unworkable.
5.
As a matter of common sense, I cannot imagine that any barrister will be so foolish as
to refuse to provide the information upon request. He runs the risk of not only losing
the piece of work but the goodwill altogether. It is simply not in his interest to do so.
6.
To the suggestion that a barrister may refuse to provide the information as a way to
decline instructions (e.g. unpopular briefs): First, there is no evidence to suggest that
this is a cause for concern under the present system/practice, or that such behaviour is
likely to become prevalent in future. Secondly, such behaviour is likely to fall foul of
the spirit of the cab-rank principle and is likely to ground disciplinary action against
the barrister concerned.
7.
In my view, the stated objective of ensuring adequate information be provided to lay
client can be achieved under the present system (when it is expected that there will be
more negotiations and agreements between solicitors and barristers before instructions
are given). There is no necessity for the creation of a further obligation as suggested
in Recommendation 124."
|
 |
|