The Solicitors Regulation Authority has confirmed that it regards judicial evaluation as a ‘central feature’ of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates. However, chief executive Antony Townsend warned today that quality assurance ‘should not be used as a device to exclude the demonstrably competent simply because their pattern of practice does not include trial work’.

In the latest twist to a long-running wrangle over the design of the controversial scheme, Townsend was responding to the Bar Standards Board’s concern that amendments proposed by the SRA would allow judicial evaluation to be bypassed.

The framework for the controversial new scheme is being designed by the Joint Advocacy Group, which comprises the SRA, the BSB, ILEX Professional Standards and the Legal Services Board. The group proposes the assessment of all advocates against a common set of standards at four levels of experience, and with periodic reviews. Advocates seeking accreditation to the two higher levels will have their performance assessed by members of the judiciary.

Reflecting many solicitors’ opposition to judicial evaluation, the SRA has proposed that the scheme be amended so that plea-only advocates can do non-trial work at the higher levels without being judicially assessed.

In response the BSB proposed that plea-only advocates would be allowed to continue to practise while giving them up to two years to develop their skills and experience to conduct full trials and to come within the full framework of the scheme. Calling for regulators to press ahead with implementation, the BSB said that judicial evaluation is an essential guarantee for the consumer.

The BSB believes that advocates should be assessed in real life situations by judges who have the skills to evaluate the quality of the advocacy before them, rather than in role-play exercises. BSB chair Lady Deech said: ‘We are the majority regulator for advocates in England and Wales, and as such we take very seriously our duties to the public, to victims and their families and to others in the courts to assure the best possible standards of advocacy.

‘We are keen to see a simple, unbureaucratic and workable quality scheme brought in as soon as possible. That is what we are urging the minority advocacy regulators to join us in a scheme that will quickly benefit the public and courts and provide consumers with the reassurance that their advocate has faced robust judicial evaluation.’

In response Townsend said: ‘The SRA, as the regulator of over 11,000 advocates, is ready to begin the rapid implementation of the Quality Assurance Scheme for criminal advocates on the basis of the proposals agreed with the LSB and all the other key stakeholders. We have urged the BSB to agree.’

He said the use of judicial evaluation is a ‘central feature’ of the scheme.

‘Our focus is, as it always has been, on the introduction of a scheme which has at its heart a common set of advocacy standards against the full range of which the competence of all advocates can be measured and judged,’ said Townsend.

He said: ‘All those who undertake trials will be required to obtain judicial evaluations of their performance.’

But added: ‘The scheme should not be used as a device to exclude the demonstrably competent simply because their pattern of practice does not include trial work. We are committed to a review of the scheme, with our partners, when we have sufficient evidence to see whether adjustments are required.’

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson was dismissive of the BSB proposals. He said: 'Quality assurance of advocates must be to the benefit to clients and to the delivery of justice. It must not be used as a means to protect barristers from competition. Surely the BSB can’t be ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming bulk of advocacy in England and Wales is carried out by solicitors.

'Over 11,000 solicitors appear in the criminal courts daily and the proposals put forward by the BSB would leave many of them unable practically to comply with the requirements of the quality assurance scheme. This would have serious ramifications for their clients and the administration of justice, for no good reason.

'The Law Society supports a proportionate system of quality assurance for advocates which requires advocates to demonstrate their competency. We accept that the judiciary should have a role in the system, though as Lord Justice Moses recently pointed out, the BSB’s proposals are the wrong way to achieve that. The requirements should not put unnecessary barriers in the way of competent advocates practising their profession in the interests of their clients. The SRA is advocating sensible measures intended to address these prospective barriers - they have our support.'