The Bar Standards’ Board’s annual Clementi debate took place last week.

With the recent publication of the bar’s consultation on continuing professional development (CPD) and the joint review of legal education by the three regulators currently underway, the topic for this year’s debate was the future of CPD for barristers and whether it is ‘fit for purpose’.

This begs two questions - what is the purpose of CPD and what makes it effective?

Derek Wood QC, who led the bar’s CPD working group, answered these questions, having surveyed the CPD requirements of other legal professions, including English and Scottish solicitors, the Irish and Scots bars, and perhaps more randomly, the legal profession in Singapore.

All agreed that the objective of CPD is the development of relevant knowledge and skills in the practitioner’s area of practice; keeping up to date with new developments in that area; giving confidence to receivers of services and to the public that professionals are skilled in their practice area; and maintaining an ethos of professional collegiality which advances knowledge, skills and good practice.

On what makes CPD effective, Wood pointed to a study of the views of barristers who had undertaken CPD courses in May and November 2010, reinforced by the results of a survey of doctors commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the GMC.

They said that to be effective and achieve its purpose, CPD must be sufficiently flexible and tailored to the needs of the individual practitioner.

Wood concluded: ‘A formalistic tick-box scheme which is designed more to police compliance rather than encourage the development of knowledge and skills is not only resented, but also of little value.’

Following their review of the bar’s current CPD requirements, Wood and his group proposed a revised scheme that doubles the time that barristers undertake, from 12 to 24 hours a year; and introduces a more flexible definition of CPD allowing an increased range of activities, including private study (and reading publications like the Law Society Gazette).

They said that barristers, as a condition of receiving or renewing their practising certificate, should complete a declaration that they have complied with their CPD obligations in the previous calendar year.

This scheme, to barrister Matthew Nicklin, of London’s 5 Raymond Buildings, sounded like the tick-box exercise that Wood had cautioned against.

He told the audience that the 12-hour requirement is arbitrary, and said CPD should be measured by what it achieves, not the number of hours completed.

Nicklin, who sits on the BSB, said the system devised by Wood had been put together primarily for ease of compliance by the regulated, and ease of enforcement by the regulator.

But it had lost sight of the public interest, he suggested.

Nicklin said a ‘one size fits all’ solution cannot be justified, and the number of CPD hours required by each practitioner should vary and be dependent on the area of practice, seniority and experience.

He offered the New Zealand approach as an alternative to Wood’s regime.

Under the New Zealand Law Society rules: ‘A barrister must undertake the continuing education and professional development necessary to ensure an adequate level of knowledge and competence in his or her fields of practice.’

This model places the onus onto the barrister to assess their own CPD requirements.

In contrast to Nicklin’s desire for a relaxed system, Nicola Higgins, barrister at 15 New Bridge Street Chambers and chair of the Young Bar Committee, called for a more prescriptive CPD regime than that proposed by Wood.

But to this she added the caveat that any regime must be cheap so that all barristers, whatever their means, are able to comply with it.

Otherwise, she said, it risked creating another barrier to the profession.

The dilemma identified by Wood, is how to strike the balance between an ‘honour-based’ system and an ‘evidence-based’ system.

He noted: ‘A system driven by a desire to detect and eliminate defaulters will end up being too rigid, while a system that allows too much discretion to practitioners will lose the respect of the public, and probably the profession too.’

It looks likely he will have a debate on his hands, as his proposals are the subject of consultation by the profession.

Solicitors currently have to complete 16 hours of CPD a year.

They assess their own training needs and keep a record of what they have done.

This raises the question of whether the two professions should have to comply with the same CPD requirement, but that is perhaps another debate.