*/
The background to QASA and its possible evolution; and a look at the debate surrounding fusion of the profession
Contributor
Michael Todd QC, Bar Chairman
“This was my first experience of the Family Court system and I was deeply impressed with the level of care and attention with which [X] ‘was just doing her job’. At a very vulnerable time I felt protected, reassured and offered the confidence and clarity with which to make my choices. While I had only met her once before and knew I was benefitting from her years of experience of more complex case work, she made me feel my case was just as important.” Not my personal experience, but the experience of an intelligent and articulate litigant before our Courts, set out by that grateful litigant in her letter to me of 26 January. It is a testament to a very able barrister; a barrister who is, herself, a testament to the excellence and quality of the Bar. As Chairman of the Bar, I was proud to receive that letter.
So why do advocates need to be quality assured? The germ of the idea for a scheme for the quality assurance of advocates (QASA) is to be found in the Carter Review Report in July 2006. The Executive Summary of that Report stated that “there should be a minimum standard of quality for all legal aid practitioners assured through peer review.” The Department of Constitutional Affairs (as then was) presented a Report to Parliament in November 2006 as a result of the Carter Review which stated that “Quality is at the heart of our legal aid reforms. We need to ensure that changes to the procurement system do not compromise good quality service for clients and defendants. Quality is essential to the market-based approach in our legal aid reforms, as price can never be the sole consideration for awarding contracts. All providers wishing to undertake legal aid work should pass a strict quality threshold. Such an assurance of professional quality should both protect and help individuals to have confidence in the service that they receive, and also contribute to an overall sense of trust in the justice system.”
There can be no doubt that the criminal justice system is dependent upon good quality advocacy to deliver fair results. The criminal Bar, rightly, prides itself on its advocacy skills, the quality of which is far above and beyond the lowest common denominators of competence at which some fear any quality assurance scheme may wish to assess advocates. I know of no consumer of legal services, be that the Government, the public or the Judiciary, who sees any benefit, or public interest, in the creation of more than one scheme for quality assurance, and particularly of assessment, or in ‘salami slicing’ the advocacy function between trials and pleas. Advocates must be assessed, if they are to be assured advocates, on the full range of advocacy skills and competencies.
The BSB website states: “(T)he public interest and consumer protection require a proactive approach to assuring advocacy competence in the criminal courts. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the regulators are responsible for setting and maintaining standards within their respective professions. This includes a requirement upon them to have in place effective quality assurance arrangements.” There is little doubt in my mind that, over time, there will be calls to quality assure advocates practising in areas other than crime.
But what does this mean in quality assurance terms for those not practising in crime? The BSB’s position, as I understand it, is that it sees its quality assurance responsibilities and activities as forming part of good regulatory practice. It is not suggested, so far as I am aware, that there is any evidence-based need for a similar scheme for advocacy in other practice areas. Thus whilst quality assurance is likely to be rolled out across the Bar as part of the BSB’s good regulatory practice, that does not mean that ‘QASA Crime’ gets rolled out beyond those practising in crime. We must, however, start to think about how we are able to evidence the absence of any need for any such scheme and/or be proactive and cooperative in devising a scheme to demonstrate how quality can be assured. In this SBAs have a really important role to play and should start by asking and answering the questions “what does quality in the provision of legal services in our area of law look like? Would users of our services articulate it in the same way?”
In an article entitled “Law Society President: split in profession to end”, on 25 January, the Law Society Gazette reported on John Wotton’s speech to the Said Business School in Oxford, “Fission or Fusion; Independence or Constraint.” The Gazette reported that the President thought it inevitable that the professions will “need to revisit the question whether [they] should continue to be separately trained, represented and regulated,” adding that he envisaged a time “when the distinction will be more a decorative than a functional aspect of our legal constitution.”
What the Gazette omitted to report, however, was the following from the President’s speech: “I assume, however, that the two separate professional titles of barrister and solicitor will survive for the foreseeable future, if only because there is no strong current of opinion in favour of fusion on the part of the members of the professions or their clients.”
I suggest the reason is that solicitors recognise and value the quality and excellence with which the Bar delivers its specialist advocacy and advisory services. When the fact is recognised that not all solicitors wish to provide advocacy services and that not all barristers wish to perform litigation services, perhaps this sterile debate can be laid to rest. I leave you with this thought; is this now the time for all would-be advocates to elect to come to the Bar?
So why do advocates need to be quality assured? The germ of the idea for a scheme for the quality assurance of advocates (QASA) is to be found in the Carter Review Report in July 2006. The Executive Summary of that Report stated that “there should be a minimum standard of quality for all legal aid practitioners assured through peer review.” The Department of Constitutional Affairs (as then was) presented a Report to Parliament in November 2006 as a result of the Carter Review which stated that “Quality is at the heart of our legal aid reforms. We need to ensure that changes to the procurement system do not compromise good quality service for clients and defendants. Quality is essential to the market-based approach in our legal aid reforms, as price can never be the sole consideration for awarding contracts. All providers wishing to undertake legal aid work should pass a strict quality threshold. Such an assurance of professional quality should both protect and help individuals to have confidence in the service that they receive, and also contribute to an overall sense of trust in the justice system.”
There can be no doubt that the criminal justice system is dependent upon good quality advocacy to deliver fair results. The criminal Bar, rightly, prides itself on its advocacy skills, the quality of which is far above and beyond the lowest common denominators of competence at which some fear any quality assurance scheme may wish to assess advocates. I know of no consumer of legal services, be that the Government, the public or the Judiciary, who sees any benefit, or public interest, in the creation of more than one scheme for quality assurance, and particularly of assessment, or in ‘salami slicing’ the advocacy function between trials and pleas. Advocates must be assessed, if they are to be assured advocates, on the full range of advocacy skills and competencies.
The BSB website states: “(T)he public interest and consumer protection require a proactive approach to assuring advocacy competence in the criminal courts. Under the Legal Services Act 2007, the regulators are responsible for setting and maintaining standards within their respective professions. This includes a requirement upon them to have in place effective quality assurance arrangements.” There is little doubt in my mind that, over time, there will be calls to quality assure advocates practising in areas other than crime.
But what does this mean in quality assurance terms for those not practising in crime? The BSB’s position, as I understand it, is that it sees its quality assurance responsibilities and activities as forming part of good regulatory practice. It is not suggested, so far as I am aware, that there is any evidence-based need for a similar scheme for advocacy in other practice areas. Thus whilst quality assurance is likely to be rolled out across the Bar as part of the BSB’s good regulatory practice, that does not mean that ‘QASA Crime’ gets rolled out beyond those practising in crime. We must, however, start to think about how we are able to evidence the absence of any need for any such scheme and/or be proactive and cooperative in devising a scheme to demonstrate how quality can be assured. In this SBAs have a really important role to play and should start by asking and answering the questions “what does quality in the provision of legal services in our area of law look like? Would users of our services articulate it in the same way?”
In an article entitled “Law Society President: split in profession to end”, on 25 January, the Law Society Gazette reported on John Wotton’s speech to the Said Business School in Oxford, “Fission or Fusion; Independence or Constraint.” The Gazette reported that the President thought it inevitable that the professions will “need to revisit the question whether [they] should continue to be separately trained, represented and regulated,” adding that he envisaged a time “when the distinction will be more a decorative than a functional aspect of our legal constitution.”
What the Gazette omitted to report, however, was the following from the President’s speech: “I assume, however, that the two separate professional titles of barrister and solicitor will survive for the foreseeable future, if only because there is no strong current of opinion in favour of fusion on the part of the members of the professions or their clients.”
I suggest the reason is that solicitors recognise and value the quality and excellence with which the Bar delivers its specialist advocacy and advisory services. When the fact is recognised that not all solicitors wish to provide advocacy services and that not all barristers wish to perform litigation services, perhaps this sterile debate can be laid to rest. I leave you with this thought; is this now the time for all would-be advocates to elect to come to the Bar?
The background to QASA and its possible evolution; and a look at the debate surrounding fusion of the profession
Contributor
Michael Todd QC, Bar Chairman
“This was my first experience of the Family Court system and I was deeply impressed with the level of care and attention with which [X] ‘was just doing her job’. At a very vulnerable time I felt protected, reassured and offered the confidence and clarity with which to make my choices. While I had only met her once before and knew I was benefitting from her years of experience of more complex case work, she made me feel my case was just as important.” Not my personal experience, but the experience of an intelligent and articulate litigant before our Courts, set out by that grateful litigant in her letter to me of 26 January. It is a testament to a very able barrister; a barrister who is, herself, a testament to the excellence and quality of the Bar. As Chairman of the Bar, I was proud to receive that letter.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt