Individuals can now consult a barrister directly without using a solicitor

Barristers Direct has been established by Peter Shanley SC following the commencement last September of section 101 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 allowing barristers to accept legal instructions directly from clients in non-contentious matters.

Very interesting. I have spoken to barristers on a few occasions about consumer finance issues and they were very cautious about saying much without going via a solicitor.

This new rule makes a lot of sense.

Section 101 states:

“No professional code shall operate to prevent a barrister from providing legal services as a practising barrister in relation to a matter, other than a contentious matter, where his or her instructions on that matter were received directly from a person who is not a solicitor.”

The Guidance Note sets out information on:

• What is a contentious matter
• Your obligations after receiving direct instructions in a non-contentious matter
• Your obligations in relation to costs transparency

The Guidance Note should be read in conjunction with the LSRA Code of Practice for Practising Barristers which came into effect on 26 September 2024.

Provision 3.12 of the Code states inter alia:

“In contentious matters, as defined in the Act, a practising barrister shall not take instructions directly from a client. However, in a matter other than a contentious matter a practising barrister may accept instructions from a person who is not a solicitor.”

2. What is a Contentious Matter

2.1 Section 99 of the Act provides the meaning of the term “contentious matter” in Part 8 of the Act (Section 101 is also contained in Part 8 of the Act).

2.2 Section 99 states the following:

‘contentious matter’ means a matter that arises in, and that relates to the subject matter of, proceedings before any court, tribunal or other body or person before which the respective legal rights and obligations of two or more parties are determined, to which the person instructing the practising barrister concerned is a party.’

2.3 Barristers should satisfy themselves that the matter is not a contentious matter before accepting instructions directly from a person who is not a solicitor. In the majority of matters, it will be apparent to a barrister that a matter is contentious or non-contentious. However, there may be situations where a barrister is uncertain as to whether certain matters are considered contentious or not.

...

 The Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 (as amended) defines “contentious business” as:

‘ "contentious business" means business done by a solicitor in or for the purposes of or in contemplation of proceedings before a court or tribunal or before an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Acts, 1954 and 1980.’

2.7 Barristers may also with to have regard to the decisions in Bond v Dunne [2017] IEHC 646 and Mallon v Minister for Justice & Ors [2025] IEHC 125 as they relate to clients’
direct access to barristers and contentious matters.

I am not much wiser.

Is a contentious matter something which is already the subject of legal proceedings. So if I have received a summons or issued papers in a case , it is contentious.

However, if I want a barrister's opinion on the legality of vulture funds' interest rates but have not issued proceedings, then it's not contentious - yet?

Brendan Burgess said:

Is a contentious matter something which is already the subject of legal proceedings.

Click to expand...

You might need to consult with a solicitor and/or barrister to answer that question...

from the Irish Legal link:

It remains necessary to engage a solicitor to issue legal proceedings, and Barristers Direct says barristers contacted through the service will be able to function as a “triage service” by referring clients to solicitors.

However, the new business says that many disputes can be resolved without resorting to litigation and instructing one legal professional in such cases, instead of two, will save time and money.

Click to expand...

And from the barristers direct site:

Based on your specific legal query, we will arrange your consultation with a barrister who specialises in that area of law, getting you expert advice before any legal proceedings are issued, saving both time and money.

Click to expand...

So you can consult a barrister on queries, but to pursue anything you'll then need a solicitor to instruct a barrister on litigation.

Years ago I was living abroad and wanted a firm opinion on a point of law that applied to me that Revenue and DSP would not give a firm answer to me on.


I contacted a few barristers directly. The only one that responded told me he could deal with me directly only because I wasn’t resident in the state, and this was after a lot of back and forth by him and the Law Society!

I hope the new legislation has improved on this kind of nonsense.

Essentially, if you're looking for advice in relation to a dispute that is before, or may come before, a court or tribunal, you'll need a solicitor.

But in relation to pure advisory work, where there is no dispute, you can deal directly with a barrister. E.g. — How can I structure this transaction so that it will engage the tax treatment I desire? Can you review this merger/acquisition agreement and advise if it gives me adequate protection against risks X, Y and Z? Here is an unregistered title — is it a good marketable title, or should I choose not to buy this property unless the vendor first registers the title? I want to set up a trust to run a charitable home for elderly and infirm cats, funded into the future by a business that restrings tennis racquets — can you draft a suitable trust deed, please?

In each case I haven't yet undertaken the transaction; I haven't signed the merger/acquisition agreement; I haven't signed a contract to purchse the house; etc. I'm free to walk away and, if I do, there's no dispute, because nothing has happened. Hence, this is non-contentious business; it won't end up in the courts.

But if, say, I've already completed a transaction and now want to argue that it attracts this (low) amount of tax rather than that (high) amount, or I've already signed a contract but think I might want to get out of it, any advice given there is advice in relation to at least a contemplated dispute.

So if a customer of a vulture fund wants to know if it's worth challenging the interest rate charged in court, then it's a contentious issue and they must use a solicitor?

Yes, I think so.

The question comes down to whether the definition of "contentious matter", when it talks of "matter that arises in, and that relates to the subject matter of, proceedings before any court", only refers to proceedings that have already been instituted, or whether it also extends to proceedings that are intended, contemplated, anticipated, feared, etc.

From a purely abstract linguistic point of view, you could argue either way. But if you ask yourself which interpretation makes sense, it's hard to produce a policy justification for a rule that says you can have direct access if you take advice and then launch your proceedings, but not if you launch your proceedings and then take advice. I think direct access is intended to be available in situations that aren't litigious, and aren't likely or expected to become so. But if you're on track towards litigation, then you need a solicitor.