Archaic silk system serves no purpose
You discuss how unsatisfactory the silk appointment system has become for solicitors (Leader, 31 January). It is unsatisfactory for barristers too. Although the two counsel rule no longer applies, a silk application risks damaging the career of barristers who discover too late that they are unable to command the correspondingly higher fees of a silk. The application process is time-consuming, requires referees who in some practice areas may not be easily secured, and is more expensive than may be affordable by those in less lucrative practice areas. It has at least the potential for subtly censoring those who advocate too fearlessly for their clients.
Above all, the silk designation serves no purpose. Solicitors know the seniority and skills of those they instruct, including senior barristers who do not run the risk of seeking silk or are unsuccessful in their applications. No other profession, starting with ours, has or needs a separate designation for its senior members.
Decades ago (I think in the context of the Woolf Reforms although I do not now recall), there was a serious proposal to allow the rank of silk to expire by making no new appointments. The bar establishment – those who benefit from silk status –successfully defeated it. Potential solicitor applicants may wish to consider whether to seek to perpetuate this archaic and wholly unnecessary system.
Dr Jonathan Lewis
Retired solicitor and judge, Pinner, Middlesex
How we accredit family mediators
As chair of the Family Mediation Standards Board (FMSB) responsible for the Family Mediation Council’s (FMC) accreditation scheme, I am responding to an article by Jessica Reid, published in the Gazette on 30 January (The arduous journey to becoming an accredited family mediator).
The FMSB always values feedback on the scheme and I welcome the constructive tone in which Jessica voiced her concerns. I particularly welcome her clear support for the objectives of accreditation, the high standards that it is designed to inculcate and the benefits to the public that flow from this. Her challenges are not over principles but over processes and methods.
The key objective of accreditation is for the mediator to demonstrate the further development of the knowledge and skills learned in foundation training, and especially their application in practice. This requires that the criteria for success are appropriately demanding. As with certification for all professions, this requires a significant investment of time and finance by applicants.
The FMSB certainly wants to encourage entry to the profession, not to erect or uphold unnecessary barriers. To this end, we keep the accreditation process under constant review. Over recent years we have made changes to the process, many in response to mediator feedback, to increase flexibility and reduce administrative burdens. These have had a positive impact: those people who have trained in recent years are achieving accreditation in a shorter time frame than those who trained before 2020.
We continue to look at further flexible and alternative means of demonstrating performance. We have invested in designing a staged process and a pilot of this is currently under way. We are now exploring together with Resolution another pilot designed for those who find they are ‘time-poor’ and which seeks to address many of the key concerns Jessica raises. Some elements are more challenging than others. Our accreditation process needs to be thorough because the FMSB is charged with the protection of the public – most of whom, for instance, would reasonably expect accredited mediators to have been able to bring at least two cases to conclusion over a period of three years (the current minimum portfolio requirement).
The requirements for observations and time with professional practice consultants have a similar basis – we are asking mediators to demonstrate in practice that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to help families find solutions for the future. So we are confident that the principles of the current portfolio are reasonable and proportionate, while we remain open to a variety of means to implement them.
We are asked specifically in the article to look at extending the timescale for mediators to gain accreditation. Mediators can have a year’s extension if they have made progress on their portfolio by the end of the third year post-training. If little progress has been made, this is often because mediators have had low levels of practice over the three years. In these circumstances mediators may have to do additional training, such as a refresher course, because it is difficult to maintain skills without a reasonable amount of practice.
If there is uncertainty about any of the requirements of accreditation, the FMC office (info@familymediationcouncil.org.uk) is always available to clarify them. For example, it is in fact possible to submit some cases that have been conducted entirely by shuttle mediation as part of the portfolio.
We are of course in strong agreement with Jessica’s conclusion that there are risks to unregulated people practising mediation. This is why we are so keen to offer proportionate and flexible ways to achieve accreditation and maintain registration with the FMC.
We urge anybody practising family mediation who is not FMC-registered to get in touch so we can help them join the FMC register, find ways to develop the skills needed and complete the portfolio for accreditation.
Robert Creighton
Chair, Family Mediation Standards Board
Birthday message
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Law Society of England and Wales, we reflect on the role of solicitors in the justice system. Nearly eight in 10 people who have used a solicitor in the past five years report positive experiences, highlighting our profession’s vital role in both society and the economy. With a turnover of £74.4bn, £9.5bn in exports and over half a million jobs supported, the legal sector is a national powerhouse.
However, challenges remain. Only 16% of the population believe the justice system treats everyone equally, emphasising the need to strive for a truly fair and accessible justice system. While AI presents opportunities to improve legal services, public trust in digital solutions is low, reinforcing the need for human oversight.
As we honour the past, we look to the future. Public trust in the profession underscores the values that the Society has been guided by for two centuries. While there are many challenges ahead, we consider it our duty as solicitors to do our part to improve fairness and access to justice for everyone.
Richard Atkinson
President, The Law Society
No comments yet