Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This is a welcome development in principle, and it’s encouraging to see the idea gaining traction. That said, we must recognise that it has not yet been fully accepted.

However, I do wonder whether this change might open the floodgates to increased appeals to the High Court and reduce the time available for serious matters to be properly tried. One illustrative case involved a senior solicitor of over 20 years, acting under the Legal Help Scheme, who approved advice written by his trainee solicitor. The advice concluded that a Mandatory Order issued by Judge A in the Administrative Court had been overtaken by a later dismissal of the judicial review by Judge B, despite the fact that Judge B did not set aside the original Mandatory Order. As any good lawyer ought to know, a Mandatory Order is a final order, and this basic procedural oversight from this solicitor of over 20 years in a massive legal aid franchise, is deeply troubling.

More concerning still is that the solicitor of over 20 years standing approved the advice without applying for more funding or legal aid to seek an independent counsel’s opinion on whether Judge B’s decision was ultra vires, given the clear complexity involved. That advice, authored by the trainee solicitor, effectively brought an end to the litigant’s request for legal representation. In such a context, the solicitor's failure to recognise the need for independent legal scrutiny amounted to gross incompetence and significantly disadvantaged the litigant.

This raises serious concerns about the assumption that any lawyer of more than 15 years’ standing is automatically suitable to chair a bar disciplinary tribunal. Without appropriate safeguards or additional criteria, there is a real risk that poor decision-making of this kind by the solicitor of over 20 years could carry over into the bar tribunal setting, doing more harm than good. While there are undoubtedly many experienced lawyers who would meet the standard, competence should not be presumed solely on the basis of years in practice.

Your details

Cancel