Solicitors who undertake mainly advocacy work should come under the same regulatory umbrella as barristers, while counsel who work in law firms should be regulated by the Law Society, the new chairman of the Bar Council has controversially suggested.

Speaking to the Gazette (see "Raising the regulatory bar" [2004] Gazette, 8 January, 6), Stephen Irwin QC said that any regulatory change arising from the Clementi review should mean that lawyers are 'regulated according to their function and organisation, rather than the original exam they passed'.

Stressing that it was his personal view, Mr Irwin said the current arrangements were 'muddled', saying: 'Where solicitors have the function of barristers, they should come under the Bar Council.

If you are going to do our job and be like us, be a barrister, and if you are going to be a litigator and work in a solicitors' firm, you should be a solicitor.'

Law Society President Peter Williamson responded: 'The vast majority of advocacy in England and Wales is carried out by solicitors, not barristers.

It is therefore entirely appropriate for solicitor-advocates to be regulated by the Law Society.'

Michael Caplan, immediate past chairman of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates, said the change would be unnecessary.

'I'm always in favour of both sides of the profession working more closely together, but those solicitors who appear in court are advocates [not barristers] and I think the Law Society fulfils a good function in regulating them,' he insisted.

Meanwhile, research has shown that junior members of the bar are being crippled by the 'double financial squeeze' of debt and cuts in legal aid rates.

Sheffield University's survey of 1,400 barristers who qualified in 1998 showed that one-third were at least 10,000 in debt, while 10% were in the red by more than 20,000.

Bar Council education and training head Nigel Bastin said it was looking carefully at how to provide more access to a career at the bar in light of financial concerns.

Paula Rohan