The Law Society has voiced concern about the Criminal Bar Association’s intention to approach the judiciary with its fears about the controversial Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

A Law Society spokesman said: ‘It is surprising that the bar should seek to involve the senior judiciary in this question, since it would obviously be wrong for the judiciary to be perceived to be supporting one particular sector of the profession over others.’

He said there were ‘significant design flaws’ in the QASA scheme and the Society also has reservations about it.

But he added: ‘A major advantage of [the scheme] will be that an advocate will be paid for the job rather than because of their title. We would strongly urge the Legal Services Commission to resist the special pleading of a small, wealthy section of the bar.’

The Law Society’s comments follow an email last week sent by CBA chair Max Hill QC, in which he told criminal barristers about LSC plans to link Crown court advocates’ payments to the competence levels attained under QASA, and end higher payments made to silks.

Hill’s email followed a meeting with the LSC, at which he said the proposals had been mentioned for the first time.

He said QASA was never intended to affect remuneration or replace silks, and that he planned to take up those matters with the judiciary.

However, the chair of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates, Jo Cooper, who attended the same LSC meeting, said there was ‘nothing new’ in the proposals and that the LSC had informed lawyers about its plans to link pay rates to case level in 2009.

Cooper also criticised the CAB for seeking to involve the judiciary in what he said was a regulatory matter.