ADVOCACY: Bar Standards Board expresses concern over possible reduction in quality


Advocacy should not be treated differently from other practice areas and so the requirement for solicitors to achieve an additional qualification before being permitted to exercise higher rights is unnecessary, the Law Society has said.



In its response to a Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) consultation, which closed last week, the Society welcomed the possibility of full rights of audience being acquired by all solicitors on admission. It said there was no need to distinguish between higher courts advocacy and, for instance, the conduct of complex medical negligence litigation.



'The fact that a newly qualified solicitor is unlikely to be competent to deal with the most complex matters does not mean legal restrictions in rights of audience are needed; the professional obligation not to act where not competent to do so is sufficient,' the Society said.



The SRA consultation paper put forward two alternatives to removing the current restriction completely - a voluntary accreditation scheme coupled with the solicitor's professional duty only to act when competent, or a mandatory accreditation scheme that required solicitors to demonstrate they met the requisite standards before being permitted to undertake higher court advocacy.



The Society said it would support the voluntary system, provided the requirements for membership 'were sufficiently flexible to recognise good advocates, however they had acquired their expertise', and were not disproportionately burdensome.



The Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates said it favoured extending rights of audience, but wanted safeguards to build in quality assurance.



Association chairman Avtar Bhatoa said it was important that the replacement regime was light touch and any new form of accreditation was not used simply as a form of tax.



The Bar Standards Board (BSB) supported looking at new ways of training advocacy and increasing the choice available to the public, but expressed concern that some of the proposals would significantly reduce the quality of advocacy in the higher courts by solicitor-advocates. It suggested some form of pass/fail accreditation supported by a mandatory training requirement.



BSB director Mark Stobbs said: 'Any lowering of minimum standards for advocates exercising higher rights would not be in the interests of the public or consumers.'



Catherine Baksi