I write in response to John Hyde’s article, ‘Solicitor-advocates fear QASA disadvantage'. While Mr Hyde comprehensively summarises the issues surrounding judges’ refusal to take part in evaluation, the SRA’s QASA Forum (on 25 July) revealed more fundamental concerns, as highlighted by the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates and the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee.

The biggest concern is that solicitors will not be eligible for assessment under ‘Level 2’ of the proposed scheme unless they are ‘regular and current trial advocates’. This will exclude many solicitors, notably those engaging in specialist work that involves few trials and those appearing for pleas in the high court.

Further, it could provide greater incentive for solicitors to proceed to trial instead of reaching favourable settlements for clients. So much for protecting the interests of the public.

These limitations will drive people out of the profession and make others reconsider joining. Does the SRA want to deter solicitors from gaining Higher Rights of Audience qualifications or from conducting advocacy at all?

In overlooking these fundamental flaws and approving the scheme, the SRA has not only demonstrated its inability to understand the work of solicitors, it has failed to mitigate the risk of solicitors being adversely affected by a scheme that favours barristers. Does the SRA understand the concerns?

Is it aware of the potentially dangerous consequences for solicitors? And, if so, why were SRA representatives at the forum unable to provide reassurance that these concerns would be addressed?

Adam Entwistle, LBS Legal, Leeds