The training given to solicitor-advocates is ‘not fit for purpose’ and must be improved to conquer the perception that they are inferior to barristers, according to an independent review.

In a report commissioned by the Law Society, consultant Nick Smedley said that, unless the training of solicitor higher court advocates (HCAs) is improved, they will continue to be viewed as ‘second-class citizens’. HCAs have faced criticism about their competence from the bar and judiciary.

Smedley said: ‘Although the blanket denigration of solicitor-advocates is far from accurate or fair, there is a strong case for significant strengthening of the training and methods of qualification for solicitors wishing to exercise higher rights.’

He said the current training arrangements are ‘not fit for purpose’ and that the ‘quality and quantity of training is inadequate to set and maintain standards’.

In particular, Smedley said advocacy training on the legal practice course and during training contracts ‘falls short of what is required’. He said post-qualification continuing professional development must be improved, adding that there is also a ‘compelling case’ for improving the training of solicitor-advocates in the lower courts.

Smedley recommended that the Law Society should take ‘immediate steps’ to address these issues, in particular by establishing of a new Advocacy Accreditation Scheme for HCAs and an academy for solicitor-advocates.

Post-qualification, Smedley said, HCAs should be mentored during their first three years in practice, with mandatory continuing professional development advocacy skills training, and a minimum number of ‘flying hours’ prescribed to outlaw what he called the phenomenon of the ‘occasional HCA’.

Smedley added that the current training arrangements mean that the forthcoming Quality Assurance for Advocates project, which will assess the competence of advocates, ‘might be more of a threat to HCAs than the bar’. HCAs are vulnerable to criticism because they cannot bolster their position by pointing to robust training and assessment or high-quality CPD, and do not have a well-resourced infrastructure to support advocates akin to an Inn, he added.

Law Society president Linda Lee said that Chancery Lane commissioned the report to try and ascertain what help could be offered to enhance the training of solicitor-advocates, and is considering the findings.

She said: ‘The Law Society is committed to assisting solicitor-advocates in the market by helping them achieve the highest standards.’

Bar Council chairman-elect Peter Lodder QC said setting up the training and support recommended by Smedley would be costly, and that solicitor-advocates would be better off joining the bar instead.

But Yvonne Spencer, acting chair of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates, said Lodder’s suggestion was a ‘step too far’, as solicitor-advocates perform a valuable function and give the public choice. She said the SAHCA shared many of Smedley’s concerns about training.