Talks will be held this week in an eleventh-hour bid to rationalise the scope of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

The scheme, which will accredit advocates at one of four levels, was approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority at the start of the month and by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) on 17 June.

But a meeting will take place this week between the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) and the SRA with a view to securing changes before final approval by the oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board.

SAHCA chair Jo Cooper will argue against compulsory assessment of advocates by judges.

He wants more SRA scrutiny to ensure the scheme does not discriminate against solicitor-advocate practice types.

Ahead of that meeting, there have already been indications that significant changes are to be made before the scheme is presented to the LSB.

It is expected that candidates will have longer to obtain the judicial evaluations necessary when moving up the grades.

It is also understood that re-accreditation at the top two levels could be available from an assessment centre rather than the bench.

However, there has been no movement yet on SAHCA’s call for a pilot scheme or phased roll-out.

Talks will take place between Cooper and SRA chair Charles Plant this week ahead of the regulator’s next board meeting on 13 July.

Cooper said: ‘SAHCA continues to have deep misgivings about the scheme as it stands, but we are committed to engaging with the regulators to produce improvements.

‘The scheme is still a moving target - I believe that is a good thing if it shows the regulators are being responsive to constructive criticism.

'We think there are more steps the regulators can take to ensure fairness for all advocates and we will continue to press this case.’

The scheme, a joint project of the BSB, SRA and ILEX Professional Standards, was set up in response to Lord Carter’s 2006 report which identified a ‘client-driven need for the quality assurance of advocacy’.

Advocates have claimed that judicial involvement in assessments would ultimately be bad for the consumer if it fostered weak and ‘career-minded’ advocacy, but the BSB said those fears are unfounded.

Law Society president Linda Lee has warned that the scheme should not be introduced without a proper pilot to establish whether judicial evaluation will be ‘fair and effective’.