High Court gives green light to QASA judicial review

Print This Post

8 October 2013


Hearing: will be before Christmas

Criminal barristers were yesterday given permission to pursue their judicial review against the Legal Services Board over the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

The legal challenge is that QASA “offends fundamental issues of justice”.

The date for the full hearing has not yet been set but it will take place before 17 December as the aim is to have the case concluded before the closing date for the first tranche of QASA registration next spring.

The court has still to decide whether to grant a protective costs order to the claimants.

Global law firm Baker McKenzie and eminent public law counsel Dinah Rose QC and Tom De La Mare QC are acting pro bono in the proceedings, which are backed by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA).

The regulators behind QASA – the Bar Standards Board, Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX Professional Standards – are interested parties in the action.

The Legal Services Board said it had nothing to add to the statement issued at the time proceedings were issued: “[The] LSB 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.”

CBA chairman Nigel Lithman QC said at that time: “QASA offends fundamental issues of justice. For instance the idea an advocate can act fearlessly with one eye on his client and the other on the judge is an ugly notion.

“With our regulators unprepared to listen to us, this is where we have ended up.”

Registration for the first phase of QASA has now opened. Recently Legal Futures reported that several barristers had resigned from the Bar Standards Board’s prosecutors panel in protest at QASA.

Tags: , , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

McKenzie Friends – a storm in a teapot

Legal Futures Conference 2011Photo by Jonathan Goldberg

If the recent furore about McKenzie Friend Marketplace shows anything, it is that the profession remains acutely sensitive to the apparent threat of competition by unregulated entrants into the legal landscape. But for an outside observer, the whole McKenzie Friend debate remains curiously overblown: if not a storm in a teacup, a storm at least in a teapot. For all the characteristic sturm und drang of the Law Society’s response to last year’s senior judiciary consultation, there was pretty widespread agreement among most respondents that McKenzie Friends are here to stay.

April 28th, 2017