In 2007 John Campbell QC and John Carruthers, Advocate, broke out of what they saw as the constraints of decades of tradition and established Oracle Chambers as a new business model. At the time it was seen as a bold move to leave the business management system operated for all Advocates, to practice independently and yet to remain Members of Faculty. One year on The Firm investigates how they have fared.

---

When news broke that John Campbell, QC and John Carruthers were to resign from Faculty Services Ltd to launch their own advocacy chamber, a huge wild cat was set among a rather frightened looking loft of pigeons.

There were claims that the end was, almost, nigh for Faculty Services Ltd due to its - real or perceived - lack of development and modernisation. Then there were counter claims that actually FSL was providing a cost effective service to its members and was embracing new technologies to the benefit of its members.

Since the two Johns held their first open meeting to talk to other advocates about what Oracle Chambers could offer them, there have been significant changes in the way advocates stables are structured. We have seen a number of other devolved stables established in the form of Westwater Advocates, Ampersand, Axiom, Terra Firma and Compass Chambers and The Mackinnon Stable has shifted lock stock and barrel from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

“When we first started planning for the new chambers, we were determined to utilise new technology and employ a business manager to promote the chambers,” says John Campbell. There were some difficulties when we moved out, but they are all dead and buried now, and we can only look forward. Since we formed Oracle Chambers, solicitors and Direct Access clients have, without exception, been extremely supportive of our venture. They saw what we were trying to achieve - a flexible and dynamic model, which in particular would streamline communication and all our business processes. Change is something solicitors and most other professional people are familiar with; they see it as part of the commercial landscape.”

One of the biggest bug bears Campbell and Carruthers had with regards FSL was its lack off efficiency and what they considered to be high overhead costs.

“Our first purpose in creating Oracle was to achieve greater operational efficiency – by reducing overheads, for a start. This has been our greatest success. It was plain that previously we were all paying a lot for quite an extensive bureaucracy to answer phones, keep our diaries, issue invoices and collect fees for us. These are all straightforward functions and need not be expensive. We also believed that solicitors wanted to deal directly with Counsel. Rightly or wrongly, the existing arrangements were seen as cumbersome and inefficient for all involved.

“The stable system is really based on a world that has passed into history. Counsel cannot afford to be remote. Mobile phones, PDAs and e-mail have transformed our ability to communicate. Most solicitors now instruct us electronically. It is rare for us to deliver work in paper format. Electronic document control transforms turnaround times and makes diaries work for us, not the other way round. We believe our evolving business model to be both sustainable and efficient.”

At the time of the launch of Oracle Chambers Campbell and Carruthers were seen as mavericks, which in the often conservative legal profession is not always conducive to winning business. So, any regrets?

“Oracle Chambers was the best commercial idea we have ever had,” they say. “In just a year, we have seen our fee income grow significantly, and our administrative costs are now very, very low - it is the perfect economic equation. We think this is the future for Advocates, who above all must be fiercely independent, yet accessible. We are adaptable and responsive, easy to consult, and approachable. ”

Carruthers and Campbell are not standing still: they continue to call for reform.

“The Faculty is the natural home for independent practitioners. It has resources without parallel, and is a real centre of excellence. We are both proud to be Members. But there are other issues that urgently need attention.

“For instance old case law suggests that Counsel are not entitled to a fee as a matter of contract, or to sue for that fee if they are not paid. It is said that Counsel are paid an ‘honorarium’. This analysis may have been acceptable 150 years ago, but today we think that it cannot be justified. How can you run a successful business based on such a risky premise?” asks Carruthers. “The proposition that we should rely upon the good will of clients to pay your fees is an economic and commercial absurdity.

“The difficulties which Advocates may encounter have been highlighted by The Law Society’s recent withdrawal from the 2002 Scheme for the Accounting for and Recovery of Counsel’s fees. Solicitors and many Counsel disliked this Scheme, which was widely ignored and proved to be very hard to operate. Solicitors understandably objected to being shoehorned into a “professional obligation” to collect Counsel’s fees, with penalties if they failed so to do. And eventually they walked.

“In response to the Law Society’s withdrawal from the 2002 Scheme, the Faculty has replaced it with a unilateral one in much the same form. It remains to be seen whether that will work. We both believe that the courts are now likely to hold that Counsel can contract for work, and thus are able to sue for their fees. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act specifically allows Advocates to recover interest on overdue fees. That could hardly happen if the fee itself was not recoverable. In any event, the right to be paid a fee for work done may well constitute a property right under the ECHR.”

“Whatever the true status of Counsel’s fees, and the extent of their right to sue for them, this important area needs clarification. It is difficult to believe that the courts would step in to prevent Advocates contracting directly with clients. With this in mind, Oracle Chambers has decided to develop letters of engagement which will bind clients to make payment for its Members’ services, and in turn will bind Counsel to prescribed service standards and fees agreed in advance. Solicitors are already bound to provide clients with a letter outlining their terms, we do not anticipate any resistance to this proposition therefore.”

As for the future, both Campbell and Carruthers have identified a number of opportunities to expand and provide legal services in new ways. Some of their plans are on hold pending the outcome of the Which? Supercomplaint process. But you can be sure they are ready and waiting with innovative and dynamic ideas to meet the challenges of a changing market.

“The future is exciting if you are willing to engage in the process of change. We cannot rely upon work to come to us: we must be relevant and add value in every case. The era of the legal “ivory tower” has long passed. We have no doubt that there is a demand for high quality bespoke legal services tailored to the client’s needs. It is inconceivable that we would consider going back. We should have done this years ago.”