You have0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
You have 0 free article left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

In-house counsel cut out lawyers

A growing number of in-house counsel are bypassing firms and briefing barristers directly, citing cost savings and the reduced risks of confidentiality breaches as two key benefits.

user iconLeanne Mezrani 08 March 2013 SME Law
In-house counsel cut out lawyers
expand image

Firm lawyers were left out of a panel discussion at the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association (ACLA) Corporate Counsel Day in Sydney on 28 February, where a legal consultant, in-house lawyer and barrister touted the benefits of direct briefing.

The head of legal at NRMA, Paul Rogerson, said an obvious advantage is reducing external legal spend. This is particularly relevant in the current economic climate as more in-house lawyers are pressured to “keep a lid on costs”, added strategy advisor Eric Braun.

Rogerson also claimed that, contrary to the widely-held perception that the Bar is inaccessible, he has found barristers to be entrepreneurial, with clerks facilitating relationships with in-house counsel.

“The Bar is surprisingly accessible,” he said. “Clerks are particularly useful, finding an alternative if your first pick [of barrister] is not available.”

Speaking with Lawyers Weekly after the event, Justin Coss (pictured), general counsel at insurance broker InterRISK Australia, said he too hasn’t found it difficult to access the Bar. He regularly briefs barristers directly, including silks on occasion.

“[Barristers] have always been accessible by phone, email and face-to-face,” he said, but clarified that accessibility may depend on how high profile the barrister is.

Like Rogerson, Coss claimed the cost benefits of direct briefing can be significant. He points to the ‘baby barrister’ as a source of a “fantastic bargain”, explaining that many are senior lawyers who reduce their rates considerably when they move to the Bar.

“Some [baby barristers] have a decade of experience practising law and come from Magic Circle firms ... they’re great lawyers and as soon as they come to the Bar their rate drops from around $700 per hour to $200 per hour,” he said.

“I’ve taken advantage of that on more than one occasion and I’ve received advice from excellent lawyers at a bargain-basement price.”

Gillian Wong, general counsel at gold producer St Barbara Limited, is another advocate of direct briefing for its cost savings.

She also pointed out that briefing barristers can avoid legal conflicts, particularly when a company is using a range of firms for large transactions.

 

Client confidential

Another risk that direct briefing can minimise is a confidentiality breach, according to Coss.

“The fewer people that know [about a matter] the better,” he said. “The insurance industry, for example, is known for gossiping over a beer at the pub. I have briefed counsel in the past on sensitive issues and have taken the precaution, for example, in at least one instance, of briefing counsel in a different city.”

Coss maintained, however, that there are many instances when it is more appropriate to brief solicitors, particularly when a matter is document intensive.

“The values of having a good solicitor interposed is their ability to collate and organise the information so that it’s in an easily digestible form, and provide a filter of what might be relevant,” he said.

Comments (5)
  • Avatar
    <p>I wonder how many counsel have "sought briefs" in dealing with church related issues, and through legal jargon in their Advices discouraged cases from going ahead, leaving complainaints no where to go, except back to the laps of those accused.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Someone has to train the "baby baristers" for the 10 years that they work in the firms. That costs money and since the law works on the basis of hands on training, it requires matters that are suitable for the competence of the junior lawyers. While it may be cost effective to brief "baby barristers" it may turn out to be a false economy when those baby barristers become grownups and there are no longer any "bargain priced" baby barristers around.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    Daniel J ShenSmith Tuesday, 12 March 2013
    <p>My feeling is that they would be able to reduce fees, and still make more than being in-house?</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    Daniel J ShenSmith Monday, 11 March 2013
    <p>This is an excellent write-up because it accurately reflects how the market and technology are changing the way legal services and other companies must operate. It is a ‘do or die’ situation – whereby many will choose not to adopt the new methods, but they will simply get left behind.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Why would in-house counsel not brief barristers direct? Why would they even bother going through a law firm? When I was an in house solicitor all work was done in-house and barristers briefed direct.</p>
    0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!