About 70 years ago the first Lord Birkenhead (FE Smith) is reputed to have said that the Bar was a most unfortunate profession: about 1500 practised at it; there was enough work for 1000; and 500 did it.

This was still the position when I was called in 1935.

By the time I left in 1961 to go on the Bench, the number of practising barristers had risen to just under 2000 but it was still a difficult profession in which to start.Now there are 7735 barristers in practice.

About 2000 of them have been qualified for less than five years.

The introduction of legal aid in criminal cases in April 1960 led to an increase in the number of barristers.

Then other sources of work became available such as industrial tribunals before which there are now more cases than before the Crown Court.

But work for barristers is beginning to disappear and will go on doing so.

The setting up of the Crown Prosecution Service has already started to take work away from the Bar and this will happen to an even greater extent if members of the CPS are allowed to appear in the Crown Court.

It does not make any kind of sense that prosecutors are deemed sufficiently independent and competent to prosecute 'either way offences' in the magistrates' courts but not in the Crown Court if the defendant elects trial by jury.

The increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts has enabled solicitors to conduct cases there which formerly would have been dealt with by barristers in the High Court.

Then there is the prospect of some solicitors being given rights of audience in the Supreme Court.In The Times of 16 November 1992, it was stated that in a report into the problems of young barristers it had been suggested that the Lord Chancellor should change the legal aid rules, which were said to discriminate against the Bar in favour of solicitors.

The report recommended that barristers should repackage and reorganise their services to make them more attractive both to solicitors and the publi c.

This will change nothing and the decline in the amount of work available to barristers will continue.Then there is the problem of the cost of getting qualified.

The need for higher standards of training for lawyers will continue.

The standing in public esteem of the legal profession, and in particular of the Bar, will be lowered if entry into it is restricted to those with enough money to qualify.

Indeed, in these egalitarian days, such a situation might be unacceptable to the public.

There will have to be radical changes in the way in which young lawyers are trained and recruited.

The Law Society seems to be thinking radically.

There will always be a need for lawyers who specialise in advocacy and who are particularly learned in some aspect of the law and available to be consulted.

The Bar has a future provided it can give the public the services which are required.

It may not be doing so now.Those who have influence at and with the Bar should ask themselves these questions.

First, what do members of the public expect of barristers.

Secondly, how do solicitors choose barristers.

The answers may point to what changes should be made.Members of the public expect barristers to be good advocates and to be 'learned in the law'.

But at the Bar there are no recognised standards of competence or experience save those between juniors and QCs.

Young barristers can undertake any work on offer after they have done a pupillage of six months.Solicitors with large litigation practices know, of course, whom to brief.

But those who only occasionally brief barristers have to rely on reputation and the good sense of barristers' clerks.

All this is in contrast to the medical profession.

Members of the public who enter hospital for treatment can be confident that they will be dealt with by a physician or surgeon with the qualifications appropriate to their conditions.

GPs can find out from the Medical Directory what qualifications and experience every other doctor has.

Ought there not to be similar standards of competence for barristers? Recently a step has been taken in this direction with the Bar Council encouraging chambers to publish brochures setting out personal particulars of their members and the areas of the law in which they practise.

There is nothing, however, to show the degree of competence.

Establishing a system on the same lines as in medicine for the Bar would serve the public and solicitors better and raise the status of the Bar.A starting point could be for all beginners to qualify first as solicitors.

There is no substance in the argument that solicitors and barristers should have different qualifying examinations which test different aptitudes.

After a few years, say five or seven, most young lawyers would have become aware of the aspects of practice which interested them most.

Some would have developed a liking for advocacy, others for acquiring an ever deeper knowledge of the law or for dealing with clients and helping them to organise their businesses, property or lives.

This would be the time for those who wanted to do so to become barristers and to join one of the Inns of Court.The Inns could turn themselves into the legal equivalents of the medical Royal Colleges, setting standards for admission.

These standards might differ according to the area in which the applicant wanted to practise.

I envisage committees of the Inns being set up to examine those who wanted to practise in particular areas: commercial, crime, chancery or family.

Those who satisfied the examiners would be recognised, and rightly so, as specialists.

Solicitors and the public would know what they could do and what standard of performance to expect.A scheme of this kind would do much to solve many of the problems which are now facing the Bar.

Inevitably the numbers of barristers in practice would be reduced.

The transition from solicitor to barrister would make starting as such much easier than it is passing from pupil to practitioner.

Under existing regulations those who change from solicitor to barrister seem on the whole to do well.

Above all it would put an end to the waste of time, money and talent which for so long has given the Bar a poor reputation amongst parents and law teachers.

The current system has caused painful frustration for so many young people who have successfully gone through university and the CLE's vocational course thinking that at the end they would be able to practise at the Bar.

All to no avail and at considerable cost to themselves, their parents and in some cases to the public too when legal education has been financed out of public funds.

For many years between about 700 and 800 young people have been called to the Bar annually.

Pupillages are available for about 600 but tenancies only for about 400.

This is a deplorable state of affairs which will have to be dealt with in the future.