Sir, – Anthony Lester, QC (August 30th) rightly criticises the chairman of the Bar Council, Paul O’Higgins, SC, for his “defensive and complacent” response to Michael Casey’s recent call for reform of the legal profession. This complacency is nowhere more evident than in Mr O’Higgins’s attempt to justify the lengthy court vacations. The High Court and Supreme Court’s “long vacation” extends for nine weeks. Mr O’Higgins suggests that legal vacations are necessary “to ensure that lawyers, litigants and witnesses will all be available at the same time”.
I have yet to meet a client who takes nine weeks’ holidays during the summer, and thus suspect that any difficulties with availability during the summer months lie solely with the lawyers.
Mr O’Higgins’s opposition to the chambers system is also difficult to understand. A chambers system would allow barristers to share overheads. It would also ensure that work is allocated more efficiently between barristers, to the benefit of both consumers and practitioners. The current sole trader requirement means that the economic benefits of “division of labour” are not properly available. – Yours, etc,