This is not so easy to answer.
Typically it is the solicitor who has the client relationship, not the barrister whilst it is typically with the solicitor that the barrister has the working relationship, not the client. And it is because of that solicitor /client relationship that the solicitor's lien exists. That is, the solicitor' lien typically flows in the same direction as the contractual relationship with the client.
The solicitor's lien might very well extend to the barrister but in order for this to work, the barrister would first need to get past /through SGH. In many ways this is not so easy to do unless or if the client has also been directly signed up to /with the barrister's engagement.
With the lien though it only works to the extent of the file not being handed over. This can often work well if many of the file's documents are not easily duplicated from elsewhere. If however they mainly involve court documents, medical reports etc, they can usually be duplicated or reassembled, so in many ways defeating the potency of the lien in place.
The bigger problem though is not with the liens potentially being active but with whether they can work in NWNF matters. The better view is that they can't given the absence of any invoiced reference to be relied upon, or if invoiced, any amount that has been triggered as opposed to having been invoiced in advance of any settlement trigger having been activated.
The existence of NWNF matters could well compromise the potency of any solicitor's lien. Additionally, in such circumstances, because of the absence of any invoicing trigger, arguably the file would have to be handed over upon the giving of a relevant future success payment undertaking.
Beyond this, you then have the matter of settlements coming in and feed then being paid. If as typically occurs a NWNF matter is invoiced upon success then it could very well still be seized by the Receiver on the basis of a preferential payment argument even though the NENF barrister' fee might have covered a long time period. The preferential payment risk is the proximity of invoicing to intended or actual payment being made.
So, there might be an indirect capture of the solicitor's lien vis-a-vis the barrister' position but the absence of a direct contractual relationship with the client risks this outcome. Conversely, the NWNF approach to legal practice could, in settlement payment circumstances, potential see preference payment claims being asserted and the banking syndicate then either trumping or recovering the payments made to the barristers (but only in circumstances of NWNF invoicing and payment contemporaneous with settlements occurring).
No matter which way this is considered, a good many complications arise. This is also why List A is now insisting on funds being directly deposited to their trust account and not to SGH's. Mind you, even if financial receivers are appointed, separate legal receivers will be appointed by (for example in Victoria) the LSB.
Expand
