I am intrigued as to how standards of advocacy are to be assessed. Who are the people making the assessments? Do they have checklists which they tick off when the right questions are asked? What experience have they got of the courts in question?

It seems incongruous to criticise advocates who might have special knowledge of a bench as to their likes and dislikes of matters in court and thus obtain the best result for their clients.

Often that knowledge can carry far more weight than merely making sure that all the points in a submission or mitigation or questioning a witness are registered. The mention of ‘failure rates’ in cross-examination and examination in chief mean absolutely nothing to me. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

I fear the worst with the mention of multiple-choice assessments. In my respectful submission – and I wonder how many of us have used that phrase – only those with experience in court work could possibly make proper judgements about this subject.

Tim Hawkins, Doncaster