Skip to main content

Eddie Stobart Law

For many years now lawyers have been predicting the rise of Tesco-Law; the process by which big companies move into the legal sector and take all the business away from high street firms.  Lawyers have an unhealthy fascination with Tesco leading the way in all areas, including crime, despite it being fairly obvious that Tesco has spent decades positioning itself as the families friend who is always providing good food and clothes at reasonable prices.  After spending all that time and money, I cannot imagine a board meeting where the directors of Tesco all vote to re-position the brand as the burglars friend.  Or as the company that helps rapists get that little bit extra.  It simply isn't going to happen and thus far Tesco has shown no signs of wanting to get involved in the paltry returns provided by high street law.

There's a big thing at the moment as a big well known company has apparently moved into the legal sector: Eddie Stobart (okay I know he's dead but I don't know the name of the new boss) and his eponymous trucks have launched Stobart Barristers, which aims to put people in touch with direct access barristers - these are barristers who are allowed to act for clients without having a solicitor as a middleman.  There's been lots of "I told you so" and "the end is nigh" type comments flying around the legal world at the surprise announcement from Stobarts of this new venture.  I hear a rumour that a couple of barristers in Leeds have signed up to them, but beyond that they seem to be somewhat short of barristers.

But among the pronouncements of impending doom that the big companies are finally moving in to squash us little lawyers under their giant corporate jackboot is one small, but very important point... Stobart Barristers isn't a law firm!  In fact, there's nothing new about the concept at all.

The customer face of Stobart Barristers is a gentleman called Trevor Howarth.  He was previously the office manager for the well known Mr Loophole (who's real name I have temporarily forgotten, which is embarrassing) and was prosecuted, rather unfairly from what I hear, for conspiring with clients to put forward a false defence in a driving case.  He was of course acquitted completely.

I have no doubt that Mr Howarth is a valuable manager and is what I believe the Americans call a "rain maker" for his employers.  But he isn't a lawyer - at least the Bar Council, Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives all deny knowledge of him.  But, that's okay, because Stobart Barristers is not a law firm, it's a marketing and referral business.

These have existed for years.  Contact Law have been doing it for years.  Civil law firms pay them per case Contact Law refer to them and criminal firms pay a monthly subscription (because referral fees are banned in criminal law).  My reading of Stobart Barristers position is that it will be doing pretty much the same thing.

So, will Stobart Barristers change the legal landscape and herald the coming of the four horsemen of the supermarket giants?  Probably not unless they change their whole business model and become a law firm employing the barristers directly rather than passing on work for a fee.

Are Tesco any closer to getting involved in providing legal advice?  I have been assured by somebody who knows somebody that the directors of Tesco are definitely going to move into high street law.  However, I also have a mate who works for Tesco as some kind of international partnership manager who laughed very loudly at the idea and points out that Tesco is working hard to develop its partnership arrangements across the globe and is planning to continue develop that aspect of its business as well as sorting out its domestic problems rather than getting its hands very dirty with its customers divorces.  Incidentally, Tesco Plc lists its two prime strategic objectives as "1. To grow our UK core 2. To be an outstanding international retailer in stores and online".

So, in conclusion: Stobart Barristers appears to be absolutely nothing that dozens of others haven't tried before.  And, Tesco are not about to start defending rapists, murders and shoplifters.

Comments

  1. Thanks for explaining that - I'd assumed it was some disgruntled barristers wanting to get their own back for solicitors having right of audience in the Crown Court.

    On a similar note, what's going on in branches of WHSmith advertising legal services?

    Cheers,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…