Inside the Brief: What do solicitors want?

The solicitor–barrister relationship is central to the effective delivery of legal services, yet it often operates on assumptions and unspoken expectations. What do solicitors truly value when briefing barristers? And from the barrister’s perspective, what makes for a productive and respectful working relationship with instructing solicitors?

Shaun Hoskin, Associate at Nielsen Law in Hamilton, says their approach to instructing barristers is based on fit, expertise, and cost. “We’re a general practice with a litigation management arm,” he explains. “We do the groundwork and minor appearances but bring in counsel for the bigger hearings.” They maintain relationships with barristers across a range of specialties and seniority levels to match the right barrister with the right job. “It’s a horses-for-courses approach. We match the barrister’s skill set and working style with the needs of the case and the client.”

That matching process starts with experience but doesn’t end there. “Cost is always a driver,” he adds. “Some barristers we work with like to be in the detail from the very start and want input into the whole process. And that’s great in terms of developing your strategy, but that does front-load a lot of cost compared with, say, bringing in counsel closer to a trial. So, weighing up those sorts of sensibilities is important.”

“Cost is always a driver..Some barristers we work with like to be in the detail from the very start and want input into the whole process... but that does front-load a lot of cost."

Tanya Wood, a partner at Duncan Cotterill, sees skill as the overriding factor. Her matters are typically high-value and complex, so working with barristers who already understand the client’s industry is imperative. “Although the rates might be higher, the efficiencies are greater. They know what’s required and can produce advice faster and more effectively.”

Mathew Francis of Wotton Kearney says the commercial realities of a client are crucial. “Our clients are highly sophisticated users of litigation services. They need clear and early strategies that are commercially effective, and they require early and accurate estimates for all steps taken in a matter, including through to trial and possible appeals. Last-minute surprises, on either strategy decisions or costs incurred, should be avoided.”

“Clients often want the Rolls Royce at the start and say cost doesn’t matter, until the first invoice arrives,”

Shaun advocates for early and ongoing discussions around roles and cost. “Clients often want the Rolls Royce at the start and say cost doesn’t matter, until the first invoice arrives,” Shaun says. 

Clarity, Not Assumptions

Shaun emphasises that knowing how a barrister likes to work is as important as their skill. “We try to understand how they work and whether that’ll mesh with us and the client. Our role is to be the conduit. A lot of barristers don’t want to have the clients ringing up every day asking questions. They would rather we field those. But that only works if we know what’s going on,” says Shaun. 

For Mathew, communication style is relative. “It really depends on the matter, the issues, and at what stage the litigation is at. Early on, conferences where issues are talked through and considered are helpful. As matters get to the pointy end, short and concise discussions or emails are preferable. 

For written opinions, a call to discuss the issues or an email summarising the key points is often helpful to make sure we are on the same page before a longer opinion is prepared. It is also valued when barristers recognise the different skill levels of solicitors within our team and cater to that with the way they engage with us.”

Clear communication is central to all practices. Tanya adds that early and ongoing input from barristers helps manage pinch points, especially when they’re in trial or unavailable. “We don’t want to be surprised at critical junctures,” she says.

For Shaun a key pinch point is capacity. “We always ask about conflicts, but we also ask, do you have capacity? It’s not helpful when someone says yes, then you find out they’re in trial for the rest of the year.” 

Tanya has seen the same issue. “Just let us know early if you’re going to be unavailable. It makes all the difference.” Mathew agrees. “If there are delays (which happen!) early warnings and revised timeframes are appreciated so we can keep the clients informed.”

“Just let us know early if you’re going to be unavailable. It makes all the difference.”

When it comes to hearing prep, Shaun expects barristers to know the case and be ready. How they get there is up to them. “Some need to know every possible answer. Others are more street-fighter types who’ll roll in and figure it out on the day.” Either way, he prefers they’re involved early so the team can work together from the start. 

For Mathew a clear delineation of what work is required, and who (between the barrister and Wotton Kearney), is responsible for what tasks. “Our clients usually require an update or advice three to four weeks before a hearing, or one to two months if it is a trial, so early preparation is essential.” 

“Some need to know every possible answer. Others are more street-fighter types who’ll roll in and figure it out on the day.”

Trust in referral

Strong relationships seem to be the key to identifying who to work with, and that’s a personal touch, not an electronic one. 

“Everything’s about relationships. How you can promote that sort of interface is critical, especially as collegiality becomes harder in an electronic age. The recommendations of our colleagues at the Bar are a vital part of that," Shaun says. “We rely on our senior barrister colleagues to help us identify where the talent is, often who they’ve seen in chambers, or engaged with at court, or know through someone else who’s got the personality and instincts that we’d work well with.”

Tanya highlights the role long-term relationships play in building trust. “The barristers we’ve worked with often become mentors to me and my team. You know how they operate, how they communicate, and that builds confidence.”

"It’s becoming litigation by consent until it isn’t. There are fewer appearances, and that’s reducing advocacy opportunities for instructing solicitors,”

For Mathew, it’s becoming harder to find specialist barristers. “There are a limited number of senior counsel with genuine expertise in insurance matters, although we can generally find one where needed, and the number of experts in this area has been growing. There is, however, a lack of female senior counsel, particularly with insurance expertise. It would be good to see improvement in this area – something solicitors can work on promoting too.”

Tanya is candid about the changes in civil litigation. “It’s becoming litigation by consent until it isn’t. There are fewer appearances, and that’s reducing advocacy opportunities for instructing solicitors,” she observes. “We’re relying more on barristers because they’re getting the courtroom time and building that experience.”

Shaun's practice has worked hard to build relationships with people they trust and who, in turn, trust them. Trust, however, is built through collaboration, and Shaun is firm on shared accountability. “If a matter goes sideways, it’s no good pointing fingers. If something breaks down, that’s on both of us. The client shouldn’t bear the brunt of poor collaboration.”

In Mathew's experience, building trust is reasonably simple. “An open dialogue and the ability to talk freely about all aspects of a matter.”  

Winning and losing

When it comes to the final debrief, Shaun believes a good outcome isn’t just about winning: it’s about process. “Did we prepare properly? Did we advance the best possible argument? That’s what I measure. If the barrister’s running the matter alone, that’s harder to gauge, but if we’re involved throughout, we have a pretty good feel for whether we’ve done all we can.” Mathew agrees. “Generally, if a recommended strategy has worked, cost and time estimates adhered to, and we have received a good outcome for the client, which does not always mean an outright win!”

“The decline in courtroom opportunities is a real issue... We’re relying more on barristers... because solicitors no longer have the same pathway to advocacy experience.”

And what about the role of the Bar Association? Tanya suggests looking at the broader structural shifts in litigation. “The decline in courtroom opportunities is a real issue, especially for younger lawyers. We’re relying more on barristers not just because of skill, but because solicitors no longer have the same pathway to advocacy experience.”

When it comes to what else solicitors may need from barristers, Mathew encourages in-person communication and value adds. “A lot of our clients require 'value adds' as part of our engagements. Perhaps barristers could look to do something similar for solicitors e.g. presentations on new rules, Court etiquette, day in the life etc.” 

Flip the Brief: A Barrister’s View on Working with Solicitors.

After decades in civil and commercial litigation, David O'Neill has had a front-row seat to the barrister-solicitor collaboration. Now retired, he’s clear on what builds trust, what undermines it, and what both sides need to understand about how the other works.

David described three types of solicitors: The first are collaborative, "they roll their sleeves up and stay involved." The second provides light input and requires updates. The third wants nothing to do with the litigation process, expecting only a reporting letter at the end. "I’ve run matters that lasted over two years and never once met the solicitor in person. Everything was email and phone."

From a commercial standpoint, David stressed that barristers must understand the realities solicitors face. This includes knowing whether a client is cost-sensitive or expects a full-service approach. It shapes how the barrister runs the case, whether it’s cost-conscious or more comprehensive. The key question is: what’s in it for the client, and what resources are realistically available.

To ensure there’s no confusion in this area, David always made sure the money talk was handled up front. 

“People hate talking about money. But you have to have this discussion.” David was transparent about costs. He would give an estimate based around how many days were to be spent in trial. This would be a figure to cover all work from the start of the file until its conclusion, whenever that might be. This daily figure was something he had worked out over many years of practice. If the estimate was starting to look understated then it was crucial the client and the solicitor knew at an early juncture.  He billed monthly and made expectations clear. “No gas, no go,” he told clients who delayed payment.

Communication Builds Trust

Good communication seems to be at the crux of a quality relationship for both sides. It's needed up front to ensure both parties know how much work needs to go into a case based on the financial constraints. It’s also imperative throughout the case, regardless of what solicitor type you're working with. 

Communication isn’t just a preference, it’s essential. “This is a service industry. If a barrister goes quiet, clients get angry. Even if you haven’t done the work yet, telling them, ‘Not yet’ is better than nothing.”

The communication has to go both ways. Problems arise when solicitors withhold information that could have changed how a case was run. Withholding even minor facts can significantly undermine how the barrister runs the case.

“This is a service industry. If a barrister goes quiet, clients get angry. Even if you haven’t done the work yet, telling them, ‘Not yet’ is better than nothing.”

“I’ve had situations where the lawyer has withheld information that would have determined a different outcome. For example, the lawyer’s known that the client did X and you never got told about it. The lawyer might have thought it was innocuous, but of course, some things assume phenomenal importance.”  

On ensuring transparent and consistent communications, David encouraged the use of juniors. “Once you establish a line of communication, whether it comes from your secretary or whether it comes from you or your junior, it doesn’t matter, as long as the information flows reliably. Because if they can’t get you, at least they know where else to go.”

David's final words of advice were: “Keep the lines of communication open and make sure you get paid.”

_{We would like to sincerely thank, Shaun Hoskin of Nielsen Law, Tanya Wood of Duncan Cotterill, Mathew Francis of Wotton Kearney, and David O'Neill of happily retired, for their time and contributions. This article was originally published in the NZBA At The Bar Magazine, September Issue.}