By Anita Rice


Accreditation schemes for specialist solicitors are set for a root-and-branch overhaul following the launch of a review by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) last week.



The SRA inherited a number of schemes from the Law Society when it took over its regulatory role in January 2006. The SRA said the schemes - which developed on an ad-hoc basis and cover areas such as immigration, criminal, mental health and family law - need to be standardised and wants views on whether they should be voluntary or compulsory.



SRA board chairman Peter Williamson said: 'Although some schemes have become effectively compulsory because of funding issues, we are asking if consumer protection means they should be compulsory for all who practise in certain areas of law. We also want views about setting one level of competence for accreditation. Also, should other factors such as length of experience and size of caseload count as well?'



The majority of family law, immigration and mental health lawyers do not currently get publicly funded work without accreditation. However, the SRA is concerned it may not be appropriate to provide compulsory accreditation schemes, but says some form of protection for vulnerable clients must be in place.



The SRA is also consulting on the preferred scope and required frequency of re-accreditation.



Karen Mackay, chief executive of family law group Resolution, questioned whether general competency schemes were of real value: 'I think [Resolution's] scheme shows expertise and the [SRA] general panel does not have the same level of expertise. Compulsory accreditation is a step too far... in our view specialist associations should be running these schemes.'



But Chris Randall, chairman of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said accreditation across the field needed continuity and that it was 'difficult to resist' a compulsory scheme because different requirements confused consumers. While legal aid practitioners need accreditation for immigration work, unaccredited firms 'still practise in the private sector where clients are often just as vulnerable', he added.



Richard Charlton, chairman of the Mental Health Lawyers Association, said: 'The key thing is to retain at least some proper supervision of standards which is run by the profession. That is what is under assault at the moment.'



A Law Society spokeswoman said it welcomed the review and looked forward to working with the SRA to establish a clear focus for specialist accreditation schemes.