Solicitor-advocates will make a last-ditch attempt in the coming weeks to halt plans for compulsory evaluation of their performance by judges.

Up to 1,400 advocates who handle criminal cases are set to be formally assessed from next spring as part of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates.

Regulators argue that the new system, which involves a traffic light-based evaluation report, will ensure high standards and reassure clients.

But some advocates believe the scheme is unfair and unnecessary, with the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) set to lobby for urgent changes ahead of the final decision by the Legal Services Board (LSB) next month.

The Law Society has called on the LSB to delay rolling out the scheme, citing fears over its practicalities and cost.

Newcastle-based solicitor-advocate Paul Monaghan said there was widespread anxiety among practitioners that judges will have too much influence over people’s careers.

‘They will not only be the judge but our potential jury and executioner as well,’ he said.

‘Our code of conduct expressly states that it is our duty to do our best for the client.

'If that means having to stand up to the judge, what does that mean for your evaluation? There’s a clear conflict between the code and these proposals.’

Solicitor-advocates are angry that after years of training and building up a reputation for their practice – not to mention hours of extra CPD every year – they will still need such rigorous assessment.

SAHCA chair Jo Cooper said there are issues around ‘fairness and discrimination’ in judicial evaluations, and argued that regulators have made no attempt to obtain empirical evidence about advocacy standards.

He added: ‘There is no plan for a pilot scheme, or any sort of impact assessment.

'It is astonishing that given the objections raised by ourselves and others any regulator could propose introducing a scheme without seeing it in practice.’

Law Society president Linda Lee said: ‘There should be a proper pilot to identify whether the standards have been placed at the right level and whether judicial evaluation will work fairly and effectively.’