Interview with Caroline Harbord, a solicitor at Forsters LLP

In this article, Diya Gupta interviews Caroline Harbord, a litigation partner at a leading London law firm: Forsters LLP. Caroline shares her path from being a university student through to her current position, reflecting on the challenges that each stage of her unique career and varied roles have brought.

Having studied history, how and when did you decide to pursue a career in the law?

I started going to Careers Fairs in my second year of university at Manchester, and the law fair was the one at which I felt most comfortable. I applied for vacation schemes in the final year of my history degree and was then offered a training contract from the vacation schemes. Whilst I do recall at the time feeling slightly odd about accepting a training contract without ever having opened a legal textbook, happily, I have not come to regret the decision. I am not one of those individuals that always knew from their early childhood that they wanted to be a lawyer, but things have felt right at key points along the journey (and I have managed to hang in there during the times that have felt more difficult).

Individuals who have graduated with a non-law degree and are hoping to practise law are required to first complete a conversion course, and you achieved the second highest GDL grade in the country – do you have any tips/revision techniques for students embarking on their GDL and or LPC/SQE?

It really helped that I found the GDL fascinating and eye-opening. Prior to that I genuinely had no idea about how, for example, the government operates and the various essential checks and balances in place. That said, I don’t think there is any short circuiting the hard yards of working relatively consistently across the year and then cramming hard for exams. As a litigator, I am grateful for the really solid first principles training I had during my GDL year, that training continues to give me confidence on a daily basis to clearly set out why my litigation adversaries are wrong! I would encourage all budding lawyers to engage as much as possible with their technical legal studies as it will stand them in very good stead for the years of legal practice to come.

Was there anything specific about litigation and arbitration that appealed to you?

I wasn’t that gripped by the civil litigation module on the LPC course and I found my first seat in a commercial litigation team quite challenging (though, in hindsight, I realise that was because I had a supervisor who was willing to stretch my abilities and develop my skill set – something for which I am now grateful). However, after returning to a contentious seat after a year of transactional seats, I realised that the cut and thrust of litigation was actually quite interesting and exciting. I much prefer starting with a blank piece of paper than a precedent contract, and it has proved an interesting way to make a living (though I have concluded that there are far easier ways to earn money!)

How do you strike a balance between providing comprehensive advice to clients and ensuring that it is delivered commercially and concise? Is there a particular writing format/structure which you prefer to follow?

This is one of the key skills to learn and really finesse as a junior lawyer. For me, the trick is to have a clear idea of the nub of the advice that you are going to provide before you actually start writing (this gets much easier with seniority and time). In terms of structure, I tend to give the advice in a nutshell (i.e. in two or three sentences at most) in the opening paragraph of the note. I will then use the body of the note to set out why this is my advice, and critically assess the factors/assumptions it is based on. If your advice is based on certain assumptions, it is very important to flag these to the client because, if they turn out to be incorrect, it can materially alter the direction of the advice. I then conclude the note by summarising the advice (effectively mirroring the opening paragraph).

In the wake of the Post Office scandal and government pledges to protect litigation funding, do you predict an increase in group litigation? And what do you find most challenging about such class action claims?

Group litigation in England and Wales is certainly a growing area and I think that the Post Office scandal is actually a product of that, and not necessarily the cause of it (albeit it may be a catalyst for further growth and certainly publicity). While there are numerous opt-out group actions proceeding before the Competition Appeals Tribunal (opt-out meaning that eligible group members are automatically included in the claim, unless they specifically opt-out), the group litigation sphere before the English civil courts actually suffered a significant setback via the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lloyd v Google. In Lloyd v Google, the English Supreme Court refused to allow civil claims to proceed on an opt-out basis and held that such claims must proceed on an opt-in basis (so each claimant must specifically opt-in to the group litigation to be treated as a claimant). This means that lawyers, funders, book builders, and other participants in the industry must actively grow claimant groups on an individual-by-individual basis, and to a sufficient value for the litigation funding metrics to work. This means that many meritorious and viable group claims may never get off the ground because no one is willing to take on the risk of building the group. Nevertheless, I do predict the continued growth of this industry and am currently working across a number of live funded group claims.

In light of recent rulings (Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council 2023), do you suspect alternative dispute resolution methods becoming more widespread, especially in trust and probate matters, despite its voluntary nature?

In my opinion, yes: I think the court increasingly expects parties to give serious consideration to engaging in ADR, and there will need to be very good reasons for not doing so. I think the Court will become increasingly punitive to those parties who unreasonably decline to participate in ADR by, for example, making unfavourable cost awards against them.

Given your expertise in private client matters, in your opinion, how distinct are high-net worth individuals’ demands and expectations of their counsel?

One of the best parts of acting for high-net worth clients is developing a deep relationship with them and being trusted to advise on their most pressing commercial (which, for business builders, means personal) problems. Like all clients, high-net worth individuals rightly expect the highest standards of professional service, and my job is to make sure that we are adding value commensurate to our fees. I feel privileged to be put in such a position of trust by inspiring dynamic wealth generators and stewards.

In previous years, you worked as General Counsel for an international Trust and Company Service Provider, how would you describe the difference between working in-house and in private practice? And what skills do you think that role helped you develop?

Working as general counsel was hands down one of the highlights of my career to date, and I would encourage any lawyer at whatever stage of their career to seriously consider secondment opportunities. I was working with fantastic individuals, and my job not only involved providing advice to those within the business, but I was also on the receiving end of advice from the external counsel we instructed. It was really illuminating to be in the position of the client and to experience first-hand the support that I wanted to receive from my private practice lawyers. A fundamental point that I took from the secondment was the importance of understanding the risk appetite of your client, because with that understanding, you can provide really tailored and commercial advice (and you can minimise time spent highlighting points that are really of no consequence to that particular client).

To what extent do you use Jersey law in your day-to-day work today?

The short answer is a lot. I have various Jersey clients who I work closely with on their English and international matters. It is very helpful to have had three years on the ground in Jersey, and to have had first-hand experience of their home legal and regulatory environment. I have an incredibly strong affinity to the island both professionally and personally. I left there with many happy memories of my children’s pre-school years. One of the wonderful things about being an English litigator is that it is a highly transferrable job, and you can use your skillset to work in many different jurisdictions. I would encourage any lawyer, if life permits, to obtain some international experience because it broadens your perspective, network and just general life experience.

What attracted you to Forsters and what factors would you say are most significant in assessing which firm is the best fit for you?

I joined Forsters at circa eight years qualified (making the move back from Jersey), so it was important to me that I could see some progression through to the role of Partner. As the leading firm in the sphere of Private Wealth and Real Estate (both of which have strong offshore elements), Forsters was a natural fit for my experience and has provided a great platform for me to progress. At the time I joined Forsters, I also had very limited experience of working with female partners. I was therefore really drawn to the fact that Forsters’ sizeable partnership of approximately seventy partners was evenly divided on gender. I am really pleased with the decision to join Forsters, and I would encourage any ambitious and dynamic lawyer to come and join us!

What traits do you look for in trainees at your firm, and how have these changed from when you completed your training contract?

For me, I look for a solid academic background, a good writing style and the ability to process and analyse large amounts of information quickly. I think those points fundamentally rang true when I was completing my training contract. One of the factors that I think is a positive improvement is that there is a genuine focus on diversity, for example, we work with rare recruitment to ensure we recruit from as diverse social-economic backgrounds as possible.

What advice would you go back and give yourself as a new graduate and aspiring lawyer?

This is a great question: two pieces spring to mind. First, I would say don’t be intimated about how much there is to know and learn. If you continue to apply yourself consistently, you will get a sense of what you actually need to know and what it is fine to go away and consider further. The fact that you can never know it all, and learn something new every day, is actually the beauty of the job, and is a good recipe for a fulfilling career (at least a good majority of the time). Secondly, I would say treat your mental health as importantly as your physical health. Each stage of the journey has its own challenges, and it can be an incredibly demanding job – try and develop healthy coping mechanisms, notice when unhealthy habits start to creep in, and don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it.