No Bar on progress

The new chairman of the Bar Council, who replaced Jonathan Hirst QC this week, comes from the other side of the profession.

Mr Hirst was a commercial barrister; Roy Amlot QC a criminal advocate.

But the differences do not stop there.Mr Hirst - with his Eton and Oxbridge education - was someone with a stereotypical Bar establishment background.

Mr Amlot did not go to university, a fact he and the Bar Council are happy to publicise.This skeleton in Mr Amlot's cupboard is one he is happy to shake around.

So, it is not surprising that he intends to use his tenure as chairman to attempt that job which sometimes seems as Herculean as painting the Forth bridge - giving the Bar a more egalitarian public image.Mr Amlot is no less learned than his colleagues for his lack of a traditional education.

He is a silk at 6 King's Bench Walk, and his case profile includes prosecuting Clive Ponting - the civil servant acquitted of breaking the Official Secrets Act following revelations in the press relating to the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War - and defended Fiona Jones, the Labour MP, whose initial conviction on a charge of misusing expenses during the 1997 election was subsequently quashed on appeal.Mr Amlot maintains that his job of increasing access to the profession will not be difficult.

'The Bar is very open, and now attracts a wide spectrum of society,' he says, 'so long as you have a law degree and the courage to get ahead in a demanding profession.'As to the Oxbridge image of the Bar, he says: 'The public gets it out of proportion.

They are good universities, so inevitably a certain quantity of Oxbridge graduates will get in, but there are many other universities with equally high standards.'But as the early years at the Bar are hard for even the most promising lawyers, is it not easier to be courageous if private income can support you? Mr Amlot acknowledges that there is a problem here, especially at the criminal Bar, where there are more chambers which do not pay their students during pupillage.

He wants to see that change.

He says: 'I want to aim for a position where all pupils are funded in pupillage at an appropriate level.' He says that 10,000 annually would be a good marker, 'given that pupils can start to earn for their work following the first six months of pupillage'.

He wants to 'make it easier for pupils with ability and no finance'.

Elsewhere, he will be fighting the corner of the criminal Bar.

He says that fees must not come down any further for criminal barristers.

If they do, he says: 'We are going to lose our best practitioners, who will go into different areas of the law and different professions.'He is also unimpressed by the government's proposals for a salaried criminal defence service: 'It is likely to be a poorly run, second-rate service.

A proper salaried defence service would be very costly to run - there is no way it would be cheaper than continuing to use the Bar.'However, he applauds the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine's pay increase for prosecution barristers.On the bigger picture, Mr Amlot has faith in the future of the Bar.

'It will remain an independent profession forever,' he says.

'In broad terms, it will remain in its present form.

It might contract a little, and may be stronger for that, but it is of enormous value to society to retain an independent Bar.' With European harmonisation of criminal law currently on the Brussels agenda, this point of view might appear optimistic, given that the UK's adversarial system is a loner among other European states.

But Mr Amlot says the Bar can use its versatility to meet any challenges, and become amenable to Europe in many different ways.

He cites as an example, the establishment of a European circuit of judges launched in March last year, for which the English Bar is proving a good feeder.

Mr Amlot says that other keys to the continuing success of the Bar are initiatives such as BarDIRECT, the scheme that enables clients to have direct access to barristers without referral through a solicitor.

Since he does not think that fusion between the two professions 'should or will ever happen', is this not an initiative that may open sores in relations between the two professions? He says no, adding that BarDIRECT is most appealing to organisations - such as police forces - which would not traditionally be using solicitors for the relevant types of work anyway.The image of barristers is not just of relevance to the Bar in trying to attract recruits.

It is of significance to society in general.

It is hard to reconcile a forward-looking profession with all those wigs.

Is Mr Amlot going to be encouraging a change of wardrobe? The image of the wig has, he admits 'always been a difficult one' for the Bar.

He says: 'There is room for the civil Bar to decide they needn't wear wigs any more if they do not want to.'On the criminal side he is not convinced: 'The Bar, the public and the clients all want criminal barristers to wear wigs.

They add decorum and solemnity.

We must - as criminal barristers - make terrible allegations about people.

It is very important that this is seen as part of our job, and that we are not perceived as individuals with personal motives.' Mr Amlot, for one, will be keeping his wig on.