How does a layperson know whether to hire a Queen&#39;s Counsel?
<p>1. A layperson may not know whether his/her case is complex enough to hire a Queen's Counsel. So how does a layperson decide, when deciding hiring a public access  barrister?</p>

<p>2. Are barristers obligated to advise a client on such a question? To wit, will a Junior Counsel truly choose to lose business, by tell a prospective client to hire a QC instead? And vice versa? Barristers may not be the most scrupulous humans (insert chiding joke about lawyers here). </p>

<p>For question 2, there is a firm requirement on barristers to inform the client if different counsel would be called for. To quote the Bar Standards Board handbook:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>rC17</strong>
  Your duty to act in the best interests of each 
  client (CD2) includes a duty to consider whether the 
  client’s
   best interests are served by different legal representation, and if so, to advise the 
  client
   to that 
  effect.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The guidance specifically mentions that if something should be handled by more (or less) experienced counsel, there is an ethical duty to tell their client.</p>

<p>Generally, the client will be hiring the barrister based on the advice of their solicitor; who is definitely not a lay person. That said:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>How do you, as a lay person, decide if your medical condition is serious enough to require a professor or an intern? Similarly, how experienced does your engineer or architect need to be? The answer is the same in all situations - you balance the extra expense with your assessment of the expected outcome.</p></li>
<li><p>Most professionals genuinely have the best interests of their client in mind because:</p>

<ol>
<li>Most are genuinely ethical - consultants like barristers more than most because they are not beholden to an employer.</li>
<li>Its bad for business if it is not. Reputation is <em>everything</em>; consistently take on cases that you can't win or over-service your clients and word gets around.</li>
<li>Barristers are officers of the court - they need to work with the judges on a regular basis and nothing pisses off a judge more than a barrister who doesn't know the relevant law.</li>
<li>What makes you think <em>any</em> barrister is short of work? Most will happily pass over a client they can't service properly because there are a dozen more lining up.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>

england-and-wales silks barristers