Solicitor-advocates should stop being viewed as second-class professionals and start being recognised for their skills, argues Mark Hardie

Solicitors were first awarded higher rights of audience in 1994. At the time, many considered that this move would radically alter the advocacy landscape. Eleven years on, and in the midst of great unrest over further cuts in the graduated fee scheme, it is time to assess the level of progress made by solicitor- advocates.


My solicitors' chambers has witnessed the birth and growth of Crown Court solicitor-advocacy in the south-east of England since 1996. The experience has generally been positive, with a core of leading firms briefing us and with increasing numbers of solicitors being granted higher rights.


However, there are several areas of concern. There is a dearth of higher court advocates who regularly exercise their rights; fewer still appear in trials and only a handful is instructed in the more substantial matters as leading advocates. There is also a lack of solicitor QCs who have qualified through a Crown Court advocacy route, and a disproportionately low number of solicitors sitting as judges.


Our chambers recruitment experience shows that there are too few dedicated higher court advocates coming through the ranks and that, even if there were, it would be impossible to guarantee such new recruits sufficient work. In short, there has been a disturbing a lack of progress in the trial arena and at the 'higher end' of the advocacy spectrum.


There are several reasons for this regrettable state of affairs - predominantly a failure to overcome the traditional and ingrained briefing habits, and an unnecessary degree of deference to the bar. This conservative approach of solicitors to briefing largely explains why so few solicitor-advocates currently appear in the more weighty matters.


Nonetheless, the performance of solicitor-advocates in court and their results demonstrate that they can compete successfully with the bar. And there are good reasons to have confidence in solicitor-advocates, their training, and their ability to appear at higher levels - it is most valuable in an advocacy context to have direct police station experience, to have forged skills daily in the fast-moving, combative atmosphere of the magistrates' courts, to have dealt regularly with clients face-to-face, and to know about the practicalities of case preparation.


The perception that clients want advocates in wigs and that the bar has more standing is holding solicitor-advocacy back. Solicitor-advocates will not have equality with the bar until existing habits change.


It is crucial that more solicitors appear in complex and lengthy matters and, until a critical mass is reached, the view of the bench, the bar, the public and among solicitors themselves, will remain that solicitor-advocates are second-class professionals.


This situation has not been helped by the fact that, despite repeated calls for parity with the bar in court dress, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has continued to drag its feet. Since wigs are designed to enhance the solemnity and gravitas of an advocate, there can be no question that excluding solicitors is fundamentally unfair.


If the profession wants solicitor-advocacy to flourish, much more active, positive and direct support is necessary in terms of briefing policies. We should also recognise that the iniquities in the graduated fee scheme are not matters for the bar alone but impact directly on solicitor-advocates, and finally that inequality of court dress should no longer be tolerated.


Mark Hardie is a higher court solicitor-advocate at London-based Alverstone Chambers