The Criminal Bar Association has issued a legal challenge to the Legal Services Board’s decision to press ahead with the introduction of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) in the face of overwhelming opposition from the profession.

Announcing that an application for judicial review has been served, CBA chairman Nigel Lithman QC said: ‘The well-argued submissions of the criminal bar on the problems inherent in the proposed QASA scheme fell on deaf ears as our regulators determined to plough ahead and impose it in its entirety.’

The CBA has been advised by Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC and Tom de la Mare QC and Joanna Ludlam, dispute resolution partner at global firm Baker & McKenzie, all acting pro bono.

Lithman said the CBA has been advised that QASA is open to legal challenge for reasons ‘far broader and fundamental’ than the objections raised by the criminal bar.

The challenge has been issued against the super-regulator, the LSB, with the bar’s frontline regulator, the Bar Standards Board included as an interested party.

Lithman said: ‘As the criminal bar all wear the badge that says “No to QASA” on their lapels or in their hearts, this is an inevitable step, albeit of course success is not guaranteed.’

The scheme, which barristers on all six circuits have voted to boycott, is due to be implemented from 30 September. The BSB and Solicitors Regulation Authority have indicated that it will still go ahead on schedule regardless of the review of criminal advocacy announced by the justice secretary last week. The review, to be carried out by former civil servant Sir William Jeffrey, will report in six months.

A spokesman for the LSB said the regulator will respond to the JR ‘in line with established procedures and will make every effort to limit the cost exposure of the legal profession to this action on behalf of the criminal bar’.

BSB director Vanessa Davies confirmed that the application for permission for judicial review had been served, with the BSB as an interested party.

She said: ‘We are pleased to note the claimants now agree that the BSB is not the defendant in this matter. We have nothing further to add at this stage.’