*/
Barristers, including QCs, will be required to undergo a compulsory re-accreditation process every five years under proposals for a new criminal advocacy assurance scheme that is due to begin next July.
In its consultation paper, launched in August, the Joint Advocacy Group (“JAG”) said it was “important for the credibility of the scheme for QCs to be involved.
“The award of a mark of excellence by an independent body is separate from a regulatory quality assurance scheme which is assessing threshold standards”.
The scheme will apply to all criminal advocates, including legal executives, and is the joint initiative of the Bar Standards Board, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Ilex Professional Standards.
Advocates will be assigned one of four levels. Level one covers advocacy in the magistrates’ court, level two applies to the higher courts, level three covers complex advocacy in the Crown Court and level four covers the most complex Crown Court cases and appeals.
Assessment at the two highest levels will “need to be particularly robust” and will require judicial evaluation, JAG said.
The scheme includes a “traffic lights” system of warnings and concerns, under which judges can identify poor performing advocates and recommend them for further training.
Judges of Circuit judge level and above will be expected to take part. JAG acknowledges that judges have “historically” been “reluctant to identify” poor advocacy, and suggests a “programme of education and publicity coupled with senior judicial direction” can counter this.
While judges have been “largely non-interventionist”, JAG points out that they have reported “feeling increasingly constrained and frustrated at their inability to deal with advocacy standards”.
Advocates will be given three years from the start of the scheme to complete their re-accreditation process, and should “self-assess” in the meantime to decide on the level at which they currently practise.
Barristers have until 12 November 2010 to respond to the consultation.
In its consultation paper, launched in August, the Joint Advocacy Group (“JAG”) said it was “important for the credibility of the scheme for QCs to be involved.
“The award of a mark of excellence by an independent body is separate from a regulatory quality assurance scheme which is assessing threshold standards”.
The scheme will apply to all criminal advocates, including legal executives, and is the joint initiative of the Bar Standards Board, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Ilex Professional Standards.
Advocates will be assigned one of four levels. Level one covers advocacy in the magistrates’ court, level two applies to the higher courts, level three covers complex advocacy in the Crown Court and level four covers the most complex Crown Court cases and appeals.
Assessment at the two highest levels will “need to be particularly robust” and will require judicial evaluation, JAG said.
The scheme includes a “traffic lights” system of warnings and concerns, under which judges can identify poor performing advocates and recommend them for further training.
Judges of Circuit judge level and above will be expected to take part. JAG acknowledges that judges have “historically” been “reluctant to identify” poor advocacy, and suggests a “programme of education and publicity coupled with senior judicial direction” can counter this.
While judges have been “largely non-interventionist”, JAG points out that they have reported “feeling increasingly constrained and frustrated at their inability to deal with advocacy standards”.
Advocates will be given three years from the start of the scheme to complete their re-accreditation process, and should “self-assess” in the meantime to decide on the level at which they currently practise.
Barristers have until 12 November 2010 to respond to the consultation.
Barristers, including QCs, will be required to undergo a compulsory re-accreditation process every five years under proposals for a new criminal advocacy assurance scheme that is due to begin next July.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
