CJR Final Report, Section 25: Costs transparency

The recommendations of its Special Committee were put forward by the Bar Council

to the membership at an EGM held on 5 December 2002. However, despite efforts by

the Chairman and Bar Council in support of such changes, the resolution was rejected.

This had also been the fate of two previous attempts in January and November 2000

by the Bar Council to persuade members to accept varying degrees of relaxation in the

rules against touting and advertising. While each of these three votes went against

relaxation of the rules, a substantial percentage of those voting (exceeding 40% in

each case) did cast their votes in favour of change.

The Bar Council has power to make the relevant rules under section 72AA(a) of the

"Subject to the prior approval of the Chief Justice, the Bar Council may make rules in respect

of the professional practice, conduct and discipline of barristers and pupils ......"

However, in the light of three failed attempts at persuasion, the Bar Council cannot be

expected to persist in its initiative.

In such circumstances, Proposal 53 envisaged a recommendation for steps to be taken,

including legislation, to enable willing barristers to provide the public with the

relevant information. However, the Working Party's views were divided as to

whether legislation should now be recommended.

In view of the strongly held divergent views of some of the members, the majority of

members of the Working Party considered it inappropriate to reach a concluded view

at the present stage. No one disputed that transparency was desirable in relation to

how fees were charged by barristers and as to the services provided by them.

However, the Working Party (except two members) considered that the better course

was for the Working Party to recommend that further consultation should be

undertaken by the Chief Justice as to whether rules should be introduced to permit the

publication by barristers of information relating to their fees, leaving all options open

for the present.

The two members were opposed to any consultation which contemplated change by

way of legislation, arguing that professional autonomy had to be respected and

preserved.