QCs face compulsory reaccreditation under new advocacy scheme
Solicitors Journal: “The most experienced criminal advocates in the country will be subject to compulsory reaccreditation every five years under plans for a joint quality assurance scheme launched this week by the Bar Standards Board, the SRA and ILEX.
“Queen’s Counsel will not be exempt from the reaccreditation process,” the Joint Advocacy Group (JAG) said in its consultation paper. “JAG believes that it is important for the credibility of the scheme for QCs to be involved.
“The award of a mark of excellence by an independent body is separate from a regulatory quality assurance scheme which is assessing threshold standards.”
The move towards joint monitoring follows stinging criticism of the quality of solicitor advocates last year by the former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Peter Lodder QC, and by Judge Gledhill QC at Southwark Crown Court (see solicitorsjournal.com, 21 April 2009).
There is an element of irony here. I cannot imagine that when senior members of the Bar complained about the quality of solicitor-advocates they imagined that they, too, would be subject to an MOT. Maybe they did. It will be a bit embarrassing if senior barristers fail? Will we be told? Will PAC (Performance of Advocacy Council – yet another new ‘body) tell us? I shall be watching their website with interest. I am sure that I shall not be alone in doing so.
There are now so many regulatory bodies for Law – LSB, BSB, SRA, ILEX et al… one wonders where it will end.
As I said in the comments…. “Some say it is a PC way of ensuring solicitor-advocates are properly regulated? I could not, of course, comment on such an idea.”
Whatever happened to “market forces”.
I can work out who to instruct and who to avoid all by myself. Even the lay punters can work it out.
There used to be a time when one’s Inn or the Law Society dealt with matters. Sorry, but was there a problem with that? Really?
Now we have layers and layers of apparatchiks and their pensions to fret about and CPD providers rubbing their little paws with glee.
the entire saga is a joke.
I agree with Kris. All this regulation is being taken too far. This scheme is unnecessary since the poor advocates are quickly identified and do not get work.
The scheme also seems to insist on 9 months practice in the Magistrates’ Courts before higher court rights of audience can be granted. Just one problem – there is minimal legally aided criminal work in the Magistrates’ Courts these days and far too many practitioners chasing what there is.
I see that the advocates will personally bear the costs of accreditation. In reality it will be passed on to the clients or to the legal aid fund (what’s left of it).
Some say it is a PC way of ensuring solicitor-advocates are properly regulated? I could not, of course, comment on such an idea.
what we need is a central body to regulate the existing regulatory bodies.
(see http://www.quiscustodietipsoscustodes.bollox)
in the current climate of big society volunteerism, it should consist of punters (preferably those who have just lost a big criminal trial) and members of the community with absolutely no interest in or experience/understanding of the law and legal processes. only then can the body be guaranteed to be suitably random – err i mean unbiased.
‘nope – didn’t like the way you did that mr sumption – could you try it again, but this time stand up straight, keep still and take the plum out of yer gob, mate?’. actually, now i come to think of it…
and qc’s should be judged by a panel of solicitor advocates. it’s only fair.