Solicitor-advocate training 'not fit for purpose'
The training given to solicitor-advocates is ‘not fit for purpose’ and must be improved to conquer the perception that they are inferior to barristers, according to an independent review.
In a report commissioned by the Law Society, consultant Nick Smedley said that, unless the training of solicitor higher court advocates (HCAs) is improved, they will continue to be viewed as ‘second-class citizens’. HCAs have faced criticism about their competence from the bar and judiciary.
Smedley said: ‘Although the blanket denigration of solicitor-advocates is far from accurate or fair, there is a strong case for significant strengthening of the training and methods of qualification for solicitors wishing to exercise higher rights.’
He said the current training arrangements are ‘not fit for purpose’ and that the ‘quality and quantity of training is inadequate to set and maintain standards’.
In particular, Smedley said advocacy training on the legal practice course and during training contracts ‘falls short of what is required’. He said post-qualification continuing professional development must be improved, adding that there is also a ‘compelling case’ for improving the training of solicitor-advocates in the lower courts.
Smedley recommended that the Law Society should take ‘immediate steps’ to address these issues, in particular by establishing of a new Advocacy Accreditation Scheme for HCAs and an academy for solicitor-advocates.
Post-qualification, Smedley said, HCAs should be mentored during their first three years in practice, with mandatory continuing professional development advocacy skills training, and a minimum number of ‘flying hours’ prescribed to outlaw what he called the phenomenon of the ‘occasional HCA’.
Smedley added that the current training arrangements mean that the forthcoming Quality Assurance for Advocates project, which will assess the competence of advocates, ‘might be more of a threat to HCAs than the bar’. HCAs are vulnerable to criticism because they cannot bolster their position by pointing to robust training and assessment or high-quality CPD, and do not have a well-resourced infrastructure to support advocates akin to an Inn, he added.
Law Society president Linda Lee said that Chancery Lane commissioned the report to try and ascertain what help could be offered to enhance the training of solicitor-advocates, and is considering the findings.
She said: ‘The Law Society is committed to assisting solicitor-advocates in the market by helping them achieve the highest standards.’
Bar Council chairman-elect Peter Lodder QC said setting up the training and support recommended by Smedley would be costly, and that solicitor-advocates would be better off joining the bar instead.
But Yvonne Spencer, acting chair of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates, said Lodder’s suggestion was a ‘step too far’, as solicitor-advocates perform a valuable function and give the public choice. She said the SAHCA shared many of Smedley’s concerns about training.
Comments
Perceptions
The key word surely appears in the first sentence of this article - the "perception" that solicitor-advocates are inferior to barristers. Who is it that has that perception? The Bench; and, perhaps, clients who feel that, because their advocate is not a barrister, the judge is not listening to his submissions quite so intently. That perception - or a residue of it - will remain for many years to come, however good solicitor-advocates are.
Sadly, Peter Lodder QC is right - if you want to be taken seriously as an advocate, go to the Bar. There, you can wear a wig and the right kind of gown. No amount of training is going to overcome the kind of "perceptions" with which we are concerned here.
advocacy training
I'm a duty solicitor.
I have not taken higher rights because i wanted an advocacy training equivalent to the BCTP followed by a period of advocacy experience overseen by a existing Higher Rights Advocate.
These comments are long overdue and welcome.
But will the Law Society puts quality first. Or is it the same old story? LOL
advocacy training
I finished studying the LPC in June and was surprised that the only advocacy training that we were given was on doing an interlocutory application a couple of times. There was not even an option of doing more formal advocacy training at the electives stage, though we did do some informal advocacy activities. Having this as my sole training I would not feel very comfortable or able to go to the County Court to represent a client.
I was even more surprised, when researching advocacy courses, at the small amount of training that is given on HRA courses when compared to the year-long BVC. I would most definitely not feel comfortable appearing opposite a newly qualified barrister after completing one of these courses, having only had a fraction of the formal training that he or she would have had.
I don't see why solicitors who want to be advocates can't just 'study' the advocacy elements of the BVC and be regulated as advocates by the Bar. Then, as advocates, solicitor advocates and barristers would be equals in skill and status. Advocacy should be seen as a specialisation, which a lawyer either goes directly in to (as a barrister) or trains for later after qualification as a general practitioner (solicitor).
All fur coat?
There's an assumption that advocacy training on the BCPT is superior but is it? I know of BCPT students who, due to the large volume of students, had very little quality advocacy training whereas other BCPT courses are able to have barristers in practice work with bar students every week on various types of submissions. In London, the Inns are expected to make up the shortcomings of the larger courses.
Some BCPT courses are known for the staff being made up of academics & recent ex students compared to other BCPT courses where the tutors are mainly barristers in practice.
Pupils in Chambers undertake no advocacy themselves in their first six & are then let loose in their second. Most of the pupils I came across felt their first six did not prepare them for realities of the County or Magistrates' Courts, where most of us start out, because their supervisors had not taken a case in those Courts for many years.
Those who undertake more diverse routes to the Bar via employed practice are looked down on by the Bar Council which perpetuates the mantra that only Chambers can produce a quality advocate.
I've seen solicitor advocates at work and would rate them like any other profession (including the Bar) there are some good and some not so good. The good ones deliver a quality service representing value for money for the client.