Avtar Bhatoa’s article is an interesting contribution to the debate about ProcureCos and their role in allowing the bar to bid directly for Legal Services Commission contracts (see [2011] Gazette, 27 January, 12). But his characterisation of the two sides of the legal profession as being at loggerheads is not accurate or helpful.

It is important to bear in mind that these developments are the result of changes that are being forced on all of us. Whether or not some barristers and solicitors would prefer to work under a different procurement regime is beside the point. The government’s plans appear to be clear and we must all adapt to them if they are introduced.

Foremost among these plans is the government’s apparent determination to press ahead with OCOF [one case one fee], under which one fee is paid for both advocacy and litigation. That determination has been clearly demonstrated in the latest green paper, in which it is proposed to pay a single fee for certain guilty pleas. Since only solicitors presently enter into contracts with the LSC, that would mean the whole fee being paid to them.

The bar knows from recent experience that a single fee puts downward pressure on the proportion of the fee paid to counsel. The bar has maintained its position that OCOF is not in the public interest, but it is also pursuing the solution of contracting directly with the LSC using a ProcureCo.

A ProcureCo gives barristers the flexibility to compete on a level playing field to win and service a range of publicly (and privately) funded contracts. The bar has not sought change but it is not in the public interest for the bar to flee from it and so the Bar Council has endeavoured to prepare the profession accordingly. All the signs we have seen point to a significant number of chambers across the country embracing new business models, though understandably many are keeping their counsel for now.

Mr Bhatoa is factually incorrect in key respects, but there are challenges in any new business models and they are not insurmountable. The elephant in the room is not the oversupply of advocates but that the best will no longer do publicly funded work at these reducing rates.

Solicitors are used to competing with rival firms. If robust competition for publicly funded contracts between law firms and ProcureCos is in the public interest, and the government view is that it is, then deterring a viable market participant from joining the tendering process is not.

Competition is healthy, but solicitors and barristers will continue to provide a range of complementary services; none of us should be afraid of them doing so via different business models.

Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the bar