Instructing Me

Jane Lambert














It is no longer necessary for a business or individual to ask a solicitor, patent or trade mark attorney or other professional intermediary to instruct a barrister on his or her behalf. It is still possible to do that, and, in many cases, it may be advantageous to do so, but there are now two major exceptions that allow members of the public to consult barristers directly.

The first exception is known as public access. Anybody may instruct a barrister who has undergone public access training under the Bar Standards Board’s Public Access Rules. I have discussed this exception in Public Access FAQ. I have undergone public access training and can, therefore, accept instructions on that basis.

The second exception is called licensed access. Businesses and individuals may apply to the Bar Standards Board for a licence to instruct any barrister under the Licensed Access Rules.

Whether you instruct me directly or through a solicitor, attorney or other intermediary will make no difference to the fee I will charge, the sort of work I do, my professional responsibilities or duty of care to you. There are some things that can be done without a solicitor such as advising you on the meaning and effect of a patent claim but there are many others such as infringement litigation or the sale of a business when you will need a law firm. Similarly, I can tell you the optimum legal protection for an intellectual asset but you will need an attorney to apply to the IPO or other intellectual property office for such protection. If it is clear that you need a solicitor, attorney or other service provider, and you do not already have one, I will help you find one. I will put my contacts, knowledge and experience at your disposal but the choice will always be yours.

My fees or charging basis will always be agreed in advance. The amount will take account of such factors as the difficulty of the case, the time involved and the value of the transaction. Wherever possible I will negotiate a flat fee or agree caps and milestones so that you can review and retain control of your expenditure. I regret that I do not accept instructions under a no-win, no-fee retainer but I can introduce you to litigation funders, insurers and lenders who may help you.

I have received very few complaints in my career and none that has been upheld by my regulator or the Legal Ombudsman but should you be dissatisfied with any aspect of my work or conduct towards you I will respond promptly. If you are still dissatisfied with my response you can take it up with my head of chambers, regulator or the Ombudsman. Like all barristers, I carry adequate professional indemnity cover.

Should you wish to discuss this further, call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or drop me a line through my contact form.

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more