Spreading the talent
One advantage of the Bar from a consumer viewpoint is the independence of barristers one from another. Barristers are not partners, and there is no reason why barristers from the same Chambers cannot appear on either side of the same case. Anyone at the Bar knows that this happens day in day out. The independence is such that it is not regarded as damaging for barristers to appear in front of fellow members of Chambers when they sit as Recorders/Deputy High Court Judges (although it is not generally appropriate for them to sit on conditional fee agreement cases involving members of their Chambers).
This means that any barrister, or potentially team of barristers, is available to any firm. In consequence smaller firms of solicitors are still able to get access to specialists at the Bar. In an appropriate case, a firm of solicitors may widen the team to include an additional junior to make up for the absence of a specialist within their own firm. Nor usually would the cost of that exceed the likely bill if solicitors were doing it themselves. Usually in those circumstances it would be quite the reverse, with the costs being reduced.
This has one particular significant public benefit which is likely to come into sharper public focus with the existing "credit crunch" and the prospect of various banks and financial institutions being sued as the fallout from that. Namely that invariably barristers will be available as they will not be "conflicted out" of working against such institutions. Obviously from time to time there would be the possibility of a case against a body where the barrister has obtained confidential information which might be relevant to the case and which would therefore make it inappropriate for him to act against his erstwhile clients. That however will not be the usual situation, and does not operate as a matter of course.
The position regarding solicitors is very different. Any conflict within the firm will obviously mean that it is inappropriate to act on the other side against the same client. That has obvious consequences for certain categories of potential defendant, particularly in financial work. Banks, large accountants firms, financial services firms (albeit to a lesser extent). Firms that are undertaking corporate work to any degree are likely to find that in one capacity or another they may be acting for all of the main banks and accountancy firms. In practice therefore that could cause enormous difficulties for clients looking for firms to sue banks or large accountancy practices. This is because so many potential firms which might be used could find themselves subject to a conflict.
Of course there are still firms which are available to act. However if a "credit crunch" gave rise to a whole raft of litigation against banks, the existing market available might well be stretched. That is where the Bar can be so significant. Not only does it mean that smaller firms of solicitors can act for clients and still obtain access to the best possible advice. It means that if the extent of litigation would cause problems for larger firms they are to some extent able to still keep this dealt with by specialists by using the Bar for as much of the work as they need assistance with.
There are many other reasons why a strong and independent Bar is in the public interest. Ensuring that too many of the top lawyers are not conflicted out of acting against large institutions will always be an important one.