Alistair Webster Q.C., the leader of the Business Crime and Financial Regulation team at Lincoln House Chambers, participated as a speaker in the 2011 Annual Conference of In House Counsel, at Amsterdam on 21-22 June.
This event is attended by general and in house counsel for many of the world’s leading companies.
Alistair was speaking about direct access to the bar.
He says: “ It was been fascinating and very helpful to have spent the first day of the conference in listening mode, getting to understand the role and needs of in house counsel. The range of issues which in house counsel have to deal with is very wide and it is not likely to be cost effective to have a team which can cover all of those issues.
Effective outsourcing is crucial. The radical changes taking place in the UK legal profession mean that companies should take the opportunity to revisit how, and from whom, they source such services. Direct access to the bar is now easy and should be considered whenever businesses are dealing with an issue in which the bar can add value and prove to be the best option.
There are, and will continue to be, many areas ( A&M being an obvious one ) where law firms provide a service which the bar is unlikely to be able to provide. There are, however, things which we are very good at. Traditionally, answering specific questions on a case by case basis. But you ought to look at us in a different way now. There is no need to reinvent the wheel every time. In house counsel should be looking at building up long term relationships with barristers’ chambers, who will be anxious to understand their business’s structure and its needs. Lincoln House, for example, would be able to provide a team from whom the services can be provided to your company.
There has been much discussion of the new Bribery Act. As a good example of the sort of work which the bar can do, we can investigate any suspicions which a company has as to bribery having taken place. Our work will be privileged. The company can then decide whether self-reporting would be a good route to follow and would be advised by counsel who had a very good knowledge not only of the law, but of the whole factual background in detail.
What clients need to do is to decide what type of service they need. If it is one which does not need significant logistical support which cannot be provided in house, then a barrister may be the right choice. This is now another weapon, and an important one, in in house counsel’s armoury. There is no need any longer to have a one size fits all approach.”