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

Simon,

Criminal advocacy is usually paid for by the state, there is no 'buyer's' market to control quality.

Civil litigation, the majority of the clients are wholly unfamiliar with the conduct of a trial etc and are therefore unable to judge the quality of their advocate (and also they're probably unlikely to have a further trial where advocacy is needed) again removing the 'buyer's market' control.

Solicitors in civil cases often are not (certainly in routine matters) sitting behind counsel and therefore they are not necessarily well placed to judge counsel's performance (also one does get poor cases and mad clients (and made instructing solicitors ./ opponents)).

As a deep and dry small state Tory I generally think that the market is the most efficeince means of addressing the issue of quality but in this case I do not think that this is an effective or appropriate control.

I think that the QASA was nonsense on a good day but that does not mean that this can be left to the market.

My view is that solicitor advocates should join an Inn and be subject to CPD and peer review as should the junior bar.

Your details

Cancel