Eddie Stobart aims to shake up access to Barristers

Eddie Stobart has kept my children entertained on long car journeys for years – spotting a member of the smartly liveried logistics fleet was usually rewarded with a sweet, and often resulted in the kids staying on-task for far longer than tended to be the case with school assignments.  But never in my wildest dreams did I think that the trucking business would have any connection whatsoever with my professional sphere (except as a paying customer for legal services itself).  Well, it seems I was wrong. 

Eddie Stobart has just launched a new service to link members of the public and businesses direct to a barrister without needing to employ a solicitor to act as “middle man”.  There has been a huge amount of speculation about which businesses might choose to enter the legal markets as a consequence of the LSA changes; Tesco, Co-Op, Saga and WHSmiths have been widely discussed and debated for a number of years now, but I don’t know of anyone who saw this one coming.

Stobart Barristers, will be offering access to a network of approximately 1,000 specialist barristers across the UK, for a wide range of legal specialisms, mostly in the contentious field.  The barristers will be remunerated through fixed-fees on a ‘pay-as-you-go’ model during the litigation process.  Once a barrister’s opinion has been obtained through the service (and Stobart are hoping to be able to turn round opinions in under 7 days) if a decision is taken to go ahead with litigation then a sister company (Stobart Barrister Support Services) can provide a back-up team of paralegals to help prepare a case on a cheaper basis than if a solicitor was doing it.  Stobart expect that the total costs of litigation may be as much as 50% cheaper than instructing in the normal way through a solicitor.

As a model seeking to change the way in which barrister’s services are provided, I think this is an interesting and innovative move.  Members of the public cannot instruct barristers directly at present, and most would have no idea that there was any way of securing services from the Bar except via a solicitor.  It is no great surprise that a fear of the cost of litigation is a deterrent to taking action for many, and for simple litigation matters the involvement of a solicitor may sometimes add an unnecessary layer of expense.  I have certainly seen situations where having a solicitor as a “middle man” has slowed the process down and increased cost, but provided little by way of added value.  Equally, I have seen many examples where getting good and timely advice from a solicitor has prevented a considerable waste of money in pursuing weak cases. 

I am therefore not against this move by Stobart as a matter of principle, particularly in relation to relatively straight-forward cases.  Disintermediation as a concept is something which is sweeping many different areas of business, and lawyers would be foolhardy to think they are exempt. I do think there are areas where great care will need to be taken, particularly with the “pay-as-you-go” concept.  Members of the public can sometimes be quite naive about the complexities of litigation and how many steps there can be in the process before the substantive issues are actually heard in court.  The danger with a “pay-as-you-go” model may be that unless the consumer is well aware at the outset of all the different steps that are likely to be involved, then he may find that he feels committed to continue a weak case on the basis of costs already expended to date.  But these are not insurmountable problems, if handled properly.

What really fascinates me, however, is of all the businesses which could have chosen to offer these services, why Eddie Stobart?  What does a logistics business have to do with legal services? 

Well from Stobart’s perspective, it seems that the initiative has at its roots the fact that Stobart itself has been employing its own barristers without a solicitor since 2008, and has seen significant cost savings as a consequence.  I guess, therefore, it thinks that it can use the knowledge it has built up to benefit others.  And you could also say that Stobart is a brand name which people generally know, like and trust. But I can’t help thinking that it is stretching a brand to breaking point.  Surely the core competencies of running a logistics business and the provision of professional services are fundamentally different?  Just because a customer trusts Stobart to get goods from A to B, that doesn’t mean that the same customer would want to entrust them with a bitter divorce case.  And just because a company has successfully re-engineered its own method of handling legal cases, this doesn’t mean that it will be any good at offering to do the same for third parties.

In getting this initiative off the ground the group’s legal director, Trevor Howarth, has a big task on his hands.  He has been quoted as saying that the aim is to generate £10m in fees over the first three years.  I wish him all the best in his endeavours, but I’m not sure I would want to be in his shoes.