SRA approves scheme requiring advocates to be assessed by judges
The solicitors’ regulator has agreed to back proposals for a Quality Assurance Scheme despite some fears about how solicitors will be assessed.
The board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) yesterday endorsed plans to accredit advocates working in criminal cases.
The scheme, brought forward by a Joint Advocacy Group also consisting of the Bar Standards Board and Ilex Professional Standards, has been introduced to encourage high standards in the profession and stamp out poor practice.
Following the SRA’s backing, the scheme will now be submitted to the Legal Services Board for approval in July, with the first assessment beginning from next March.
But some solicitors are known to be uneasy about compulsory assessment by the judiciary, and SRA board member Mark Humphries raised those concerns.
‘Sometimes an advocate may need to stand up to a judge, which is the sort of situation which can put a judge in a particularly bad mood,’ he said.
‘If, as some of these proposals suggest, that judge has to evaluate the advocate, there is the danger that the scheme will simply not work or there will be apparent bias on the part of the evaluating judge.
'That is something we need to be very careful to guard against.’
He was also worried about the judiciary taking on the burden of evaluating advocates on top of their existing work, with no extra recompense or assistance to take account of the additional responsibilities.
Board members in general agreed the Quality Assurance Scheme will improve the service provided to the public, and will allow advocates to benchmark themselves against the required standards.
SRA chairman Charles Plant told board members a scheme was needed to ensure all advocates reached the standards expected of them.
He said there were certain issues that needed to be addressed in the coming months, particularly the workload for judges carrying out the evaluations.
Plant added that if there were any outstanding issues or concerns about evaluations and training then they would be raised with Lord Justice Thomas, who is chairing the the QASA advisory group.
There may also be a request to alter the stipulation that assessments are carried out in the advocate’s first two cases after moving up a level.
Comments
So ajudge who is utterly
So ajudge who is utterly useless, not uncommon now, will be able to blight the career of any advocate he doesn't like (i.e. stands up for his client).
Another brilliant tick box scheme which will achieve the opposite result to that intended.
Best of luck on that-you'll
Best of luck on that-you'll need it. The likelihood of the apparatchiks in LSB doing other than agreeing with the apparatchiks in the SRA is infinitesimally small.
Do not forget, this is not about trying to improve the outcome for clients-it is about improving the outcome for the apparatchiks.
Yes
Jo Cooper makes a good point: the sad reality is that a lot of judges do not accord solicitor-advocates the same level of respect that they accord to barristers. This has nothing to do with advocacy skills. It is remarkable that we are still in a situation where solicitors have to do extra training to be able to exercise rights of audience which are afforded to a barrister immediately upon qualification.
Let's look forward to the introduction of customer satisfaction surveys to be completed by lawyers and litigants in respect of judges. Everyone in the profession knows who the bad judges are, but nothing ever happens to them.
Judicial advocacay assessments
I have never heard of anything more worryng and dangerous - and constitutionally hairbrained. That any Judge before whom one is appearing, may be able (let alone obliged) to carry out some sort of secret and presumably influential assessment of the advocate's competence beggars belief. The shortcomings and dangers are amply set out in Jo Cooper's resume. Certainly there are many advocates who are sub-standard and many who are ill-trained. I speak as one who has spent the past 15 years running advocacy training courses, from Higher Rights to the just qualified. Certainly there should be objective assessments and training for many, especially to rectify those who have been practising for a few years and who have developed bad habits. Preparation, as well as courtroom craft can be taught, and there is a good argument for compulsory regular training and assessment. One assumes that the cost of this paid for by advocates themselves, makes that idea unattractive. So we have this scheme, probably because it seems cheap to run. It assumes that Judges can evaluate what is wrong with the advocacy. This is rubbish! I may be the best advocate in the world but it doesn't mean I can evaluate what others do wrong , much less explain how to do things well. Teaching and evaluating is a skill; Judges may - but probably don't - have it. Consistency in evaluting is essential; not random comments on the whim of a poor, or bad tempered Judge. Or one with a weird idea of what he/she expects to hear from the advocate.
Stop it now, for heaven's sake. And think if something better!