The master of the rolls has given judicial backing to the proposed quality assurance for advocates (QAA) scheme, saying judges are the ‘ultimate consumers’ of advocacy services and are well placed to assess quality.

Speaking at the Bar Council’s annual conference, Lord Neuberger defended the proposal for judicial evaluation in the QAA scheme for criminal advocates.

He said quality advocacy is essential to the proper administration of justice, and that without it the adversarial system could not operate efficiently, effectively or fairly.

‘It should be entirely unsurprising then that judges strongly support the quality assurance scheme and judicial involvement in the assessment process,’ he said. ‘Judges are the ultimate consumers of advocacy services. They are supplied with those services every day and are well placed to tell which advocates are good and which are not. As such, they are essential to the quality assurance process.’

Last month, the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) expressed concern about the ‘over-reliance’ on judicial evaluation, pointing out that judges have historically demonstrated a bias towards the bar. However, Neuberger said any bias was ‘unacceptable’ and had no place in such a scheme.

Neuberger also maintained that the continued existence of a number of advocacy regulators is ‘ridiculous’, but that in the absence of a single regulator the QAA is the ‘next best alternative’. The judiciary will work to ensure that the scheme works, he added.

Bar Council chairman Nick Green QC said judges are ‘acutely conscious’ of concerns about bias. He hoped solicitors would find a ‘degree of comfort’ in the fact that the judges will be trained in assessment by the Judicial Studies Board. Peter Lodder QC, chairman-elect of the Bar Council, also pointed out that judicial assessors will not only be barristers, but also taken from the growing ranks of solicitor judges.

Yvonne Spencer, acting chair of the SAHCA, acknowledged that the highest standards of advocacy had to be promoted, but stressed that higher court advocates already undergo rigorous training.

‘While acknowledging that all advocates owe a duty to the court and poor advocacy may impede a judge’s ability to manage the trial process, the consumer of court advocacy services is of course ultimately the lay client,’ she added.