Protocol of the barrister

As said by internet Attorneys, the barrister must agree in advance with each of his employers or with each recognized body a written protocol, under which the barrister and the employer or body agree how, consistently with maintaining the confidentiality of clients’ affairs, conflicts will be avoided or will be resolved if they exist. The Board would regard it as quite wrong for a self-employed barrister to refuse to act further for a pre-existing client on the basis that his employer or recognised body has subsequently been instructed by someone whose interests conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the first client. It would equally be wrong, save in extreme circumstances of greater prejudice to a client being caused by refusing to act, for the barrister and the employer or body to continue to act for persons whose interests conflict.

Accordingly, before acting in two or more capacities, a barrister will need to ensure, by the terms of some written protocol agreed with his employer or recognized body, that such conflicts can be avoided or can be resolved if they arise without causing prejudice to either or any clients concerned. The Board does not intend to draft a standard protocol for these purposes, since no one agreement can possibly suit the greatly variable circumstances that may arise. Clearly, this is likely to involve the barrister either himself being involved in decisions that his employer or body takes relating to conflicts of interest, or at least in reviewing client lists so that any apparent conflict of interest may be resolved in accordance with the terms of the protocol agreed. It is the responsibility of the barrister considering practicing in more than one capacity to address these issues and reach a satisfactory, written agreement with his employer or body in a way that preserves client confidentiality and avoids or resolves conflicts of interest and duty without prejudicing the interests of clients. On request, a copy of any such protocol must be provided to the Board.

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

A recent study of a small fish exporter from the Azores Islands, an autonomous Portuguese archipelago in the North Atlantic, some 900 miles from the European mainland, offers useful insights on the key drivers of internationalization for companies based on small islands. It illustrates the critical role of social ties in guiding and supporting island-based SMEs towards successful internationalization. Often challenged by „isolation‟ and distance from the core economies, and by dis-economies of scale and high transportation cost, these SMEs from small islands tend to exhibit relatively low international involvement. The resultant economic weakness associated with such islands often fuels emigration.  In the case of the small fish exporter from the Azores Islands investigated by Camara and Simeos (2008), this meant access to major emigrant communities in Canada (British Columbia and Quebec) and the United States (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) among others. There is evidence, however, that some island-based SMEs leverage the network of family and social ties existing between those remaining on the islands and those that emigrated to compete in international markets.
Source: Camara and Simeos (2008)

Growth Motives.

Growth Motives.

Growth opportunities associated with international markets were identified as a key driver of firm internationalization in several recent studies. Orser et al. (2008), for example, reports say that after allowing for the impacts of firm size and sector, Canadian legal firms whose owners had expressed growth intentions were more than twice as likely to export, than those whose owners did not indicate growth ambitions. Firms‟ overseas venturing decision also seems to be motivated by a need for business growth, profits, an increased market size, a stronger market position, and to reduce dependence on a single or smaller number of markets. The possibility of growth in other markets and increased profit opportunities from international expansion were highlighted as key stimuli for exporting among the Australian, British, Spanish, Swedish, and US firms investigated in recent studies.

Notification to the barrister

The fact of practice in more than one capacity must be notified to the Board in writing and in advance (rule 207(b)(i)). Note that this is an additional requirement going beyond the requirements of rule 202(d) to notify the Board of the identity and contact details of any employer or recognized body. If the Board requires further information about the capacities in which the barrister is supplying legal services, the barrister must then supply such information as the Board requires.

Working in only one capacity at the same time on the same matter

Working in only one capacity at the same time on the same matter.

Potential regulatory issues arise where the barrister works on the same matter in more than one capacity. Firstly, the potential for client confusion is self-evident. Secondly, in many circumstances it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the client.

The Bar Standards Board considered prohibiting a barrister from acting in more than one capacity in the same matter, but in the event has decided that such a prohibition would not be proportionate. A barrister licensed to carry out public access work may give preliminary advice as a self-employed barrister and subsequently (subject to his doing so being in the client’s best interests) may refer the matter to the law firm which employs him when the matter becomes litigious, so that the client can have the benefit of the firm’s resources in the litigation, with the barrister conducting the litigation in his or her capacity as an employee or manager of the firm (or working under the supervision of the person doing so). There will be some circumstances where it may be appropriate for a barrister to act in more than one capacity at different stages of the case. For example, the barrister may work on the case whilst employed by the solicitors’ firm, but subsequently the firm may wish to instruct him as a self-employed barrister as advocate at trial. Such an arrangement has the advantage, from the client’s perspective, that the client does not pay the firm’s overheads when the barrister is carrying out work that can be done on a self-employed basis but does so only when the barrister’s role involves work of a sort that can and should properly be done in their capacity as a manager/employee of the firm.