In light of the meeting on Monday and the continued announcements from chambers (Garden Court, 5PB, Doughty and now 25BR that I’ve seen thus far), I’m hoping there’s some agreement with other law firms about the stance we should be taking to support our colleagues who are likely to be taking action wef next Tuesday?  (Of course subject to the result of tomorrow's CBA survey).

We're looking to put provisional plans in place because of the above imminent date of action.  As a firm, Nicholls & Nicholls have decided that we will be undertaking the following but are willing to take guidance from colleagues and our representative bodies accordingly-

1. We will still be applying for representation orders post 1st April. 

2. We will be trying to instruct our chosen counsel from our approved lists who will no doubt be unavailable. 

3. We will document attempts to instruct alternative counsel who are not on our approved list to comply with our contract requirements. 

4. We will write to the Court and advise that we do not have approved counsel available nor (it is anticipated) unapproved counsel and therefore are not in a position to have an effective hearing.

5. If the case is listed despite the above (which no doubt it will be especially where clients are in custody), we will not be using HCAs in-house or freelance to hold or cover matters on behalf of the Bar as this progresses the case and defeats the purpose of what the independent bar are trying to achieve. 

6. We will ensure a representative (likely/preferably a paralegal) from the firm is present at Court to advise the client and to demonstrate that we are complying with our contract requirements by providing representation as a law firm.

7. Any solicitor who attends court to assist our client who does have rights of audience, will not be attending with gown/wig but in the role of ‘sitting behind counsel’.

8. We have no intention of utilising HCAs to merely fill the gap so to speak whilst the Bar are taking action.