A proposed new quality assurance scheme for criminal advocates could prejudice solicitors because it places too much weight on the views of judges, an advocates’ group has warned.

The Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) has voiced concerns over the ‘over-reliance’ on judicial evaluation proposed in the new quality assurance scheme for criminal advocates (QAA).

The scheme, proposed by the Joint Advocacy Group, which comprises the Bar Standards Board, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX Professional Standards, is currently under consultation.

Under the QAA, all criminal advocates will be assessed against a common set of standards. It proposes four levels of competence ranging from magistrates’ court work to complex Crown court cases.

To move up to cover cases in levels three and four, the more complex Crown court work, advocates’ performance will be subject to judicial evaluation.

Yvonne Spencer, acting chair of SAHCA, said: ‘The over-reliance on judicial evaluation in the proposed scheme is problematic for several reasons.

‘Historically, there has been a bias towards the bar by judges, given their background, and this may act to prejudice solicitor-advocates,’ she said. ‘We are in favour of driving up quality standards, but there must be parity with the bar.’

Spencer said the involvement of judges may act as a deterrent to some, who may feel less able to run test case legal arguments for fear that they may not find favour with the judge, which will affect their assessment.

On a practical level, Spencer said the proposal was unworkable given the constraints under which judges work. ‘With heavy caseloads and high targets to meet, judges will not have the time to do the evaluations,’ she said.

Spencer also questioned the need for the new scheme, which she said would be cumbersome and expensive for the practitioners, who would bear the cost.

She said: ‘The coalition government is moving towards deregulation, so why are we swimming against the tide setting up a new layer of regulation? It’s completely out of kilter with the government’s agenda.’

Spencer said that if there had to be some form of accreditation, SAHCA would prefer to see an alternative model that looked at the requirement for advocates to do more structured CPD hours per year, with an accredited assessment.

A Law Society spokesperson said: ‘The [Law Society] boards are currently considering the Law Society's response to the second JAG consultation on a quality assurance scheme for criminal advocacy work. The draft response reflects the concerns of SAHCA with the proposals for judicial involvement in the assessment of the performance of advocates in court. It also sets out objections to the top heavy and overly bureaucratic governance structure proposed for the scheme, with a new Performance of Advocacy Council.

‘The Law Society is looking at alternative means of supporting solicitor-advocates and improving their performance.’

The consultation closes next month and the scheme is scheduled to be introduced in July 2011.

Regulation and accreditation will be debated at SAHCA's annual conference in London on 13 November. See SAHCA's wesbite for details.