THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR COUNCIL BELIEVES COURT DRESS IS A MERE SIDESHOW THAT DRAWS ATTENTION AWAY FROM MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS.

PAULA ROHAN ASKS STEPHEN IRWIN ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES HE FACES

Stephen Irwin QC is fed up with 'talk of wigs and gavels'.

The new chairman of the Bar Council sees far more important issues on the horizon, and says that rows over matters such as court dress are only distracting from the important debates.

One of his biggest challenges includes gaining influence over the Clementi review, but this will run in tandem with other issues including constitutional change, tackling the emerging 'service deserts' for barristers doing legal aid work, and possible reform - or even abolition - of the silk system.

Mr Irwin - from Doughty Street Chambers in London - says he will take a 'calm but uncompromising' approach to pushing forward the Bar Council's views.

'I want to persuade people, but if we have to be tough in the way we deal with any particular issue, we will be,' he says.

Mr Irwin, 50, says his impressive legal background will stand him in good stead.

He started out as a criminal defence barrister but switched to clinical negligence cases in the 1980s - despite 'hating' science at school - because he was finding crime 'repetitive'.

He has acted on high-profile cases including the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, forces' post-traumatic stress disorder and Alder Hey 'body parts' litigation.

'I think that specifically, some of the big group actions that I've done get you to understand management and time management and organisation in a way that just doing ordinary, single-client cases doesn't,' he says.

Mr Irwin will need those skills if he is to juggle his new tasks.

Top of the list with Clementi is preserving the regulatory role of the Bar Council; he argues that although there is room for a higher body to 'audit and oversee' the council, there is no need to water down its powers on a day-to-day basis.

'The bar regulates itself very successfully and very cheaply because we have high degree of commitment from barristers who are pretty tough on their own colleagues,' he insists.

In fact, if anyone is to influence the regulation of the bar, Mr Irwin says it should be the judiciary.

'I think it would be better for the judges to ultimately have power over the regulation of all lawyers,' he says.

'For lawyers - and in particular advocates - judges should have the final say.'

Mr Irwin is also opposed to multi-disciplinary partnerships on the grounds that it would cause rising costs for clients using barristers; he says the only winners in the MDP game would be senior barristers, who could take a cut of juniors' earnings.

'Current chambers rules provide the maximum competition between barristers and choice for clients,' he argues.

He is against fusion of the profession for much the same reasons - and also points out that there is not much evidence of solicitors wanting to take on the role of barristers, or vice versa.

'If there was a demand we would have seen that moving rapidly - and it hasn't,' he adds.

However, Mr Irwin says that where lawyers do have those aspirations, the regulatory regime should be amended as there is currently a 'potential for muddle' where barristers in law firms are controlled by the Bar Council and solicitor-advocates by the Law Society.

'Where solicitors have the function of barristers, they should come under the Bar Council,' he says.

'If you are going to do our job and be like us, be a barrister, and if you are going to be a litigator and work in a solicitors' firm, you should be a solicitor.

'It should be as fluid as possible so that people can work where they want to work, but they should be regulated according to their function and organisation rather than the original exam they passed.'

Mr Irwin says this overlap should also be reflected in any changes to the silk system; he is all in favour of more solicitor QCs, although he stresses that the mark should not be extended to non-contentious work.

'I'm not happy to see the thing diluted and fuzz away into a general award for senior lawyers,' he says.

'Gongs for lawyers is not what silk should be about.'

Mr Irwin maintains that there is also more room for solicitors and barristers to work together.

Although the Law Society and Bar Council are 'there together selling English law' at international conferences, the workflow could run more smoothly at a local level if there were more co-operation, he suggests.

'I think it might be a good idea for more solicitors' firms to say, "I'd like to send your chambers all my family cases but I'd like to see what the arrangements are so it's not done ad hoc", 'he explains.

'If they make standing arrangements, there can be a good gain in efficiency by having that kind of quid quo pro.'

Co-operation and negotiation - whether it is between the different sides of the legal profession or between the Bar Council and the government - is clearly something Mr Irwin embraces.

But he predicts that what will ultimately carry him through the next 12 months is his passionate belief in the legal system and those who work within it.

'I love the job, I like the people, I like the profession and I'm pretty instinctively in sympathy with them,' he says.

'That will help.'