Controversy about the use of judicial evaluation in a new scheme to assess the quality of advocates has escalated, with solicitors’ bodies warning that the scheme could become a means to protect barristers.

Antony Townsend, chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said last week that while judicial evaluation is a ‘central feature’ of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates it ‘should not be used as a device to exclude the demonstrably competent simply because their pattern of practice does not include trial work’.

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson echoed the concern, saying quality assurance ‘must not be used as a means to protect barristers from competition. Surely the Bar Standards Board (BSB) can’t be ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming bulk of advocacy in England and Wales is carried out by solicitors?’

They were responding to fears raised by the BSB that amendments to the scheme proposed by the SRA would allow judicial evaluation to be bypassed. Under the scheme, which is being designed by a group representing solicitors, barristers and legal executives, advocates would be assessed against a common set of standards at four levels of experience. ­Advocates seeking accreditation to the two higher levels will have their performance assessed by members of the judiciary. However, 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 having 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.

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.’

Hudson said: ‘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.

‘The [scheme’s] requirements should not put unnecessary ­barriers in the way of competent advocates practising their profession.’