The “noisy minority” of barristers opposed to QASA hit back at BSB claims

Print This Post

21 March 2013


Myerson: Deech blog sets the BSB against the profession

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) chair’s description of opponents of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) as “a noisy minority of dissenters” received an immediate high-powered response from criminal law barristers.

So far, responses to the Legal Futures blog by BSB chair Baroness Ruth Deech, which accused the dissenters of demonstrating “a poor understanding of QASA”, have included three Queen’s Counsel.

Writing on the Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA) blog, Simon Myerson QC of St Pauls chambers in Leeds said Baroness Deech’s characterisation of the barristers was “not simply stone cold wrong – it is tone deaf to the very real concerns of people with families and commitments”. Her blog “sets the BSB against the profession”, he said, since in his view “opposition to QASA is a majority view”.

Mr Myerson, who said he had drafted the North Eastern Circuit’s response to QASA, criticised the BSB’s blog for being “full of inconsistencies and errors”. These included the question of whether the scheme is a precursor of best-value tendering (BVT) and one-case, one-fee (OCOF) – which the CBA has repeatedly argued is the case.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 14)

“How on earth can it be simultaneously asserted that the [Attorney General] has said that QASA and reductions to fees are not linked and (within 4 lines) that an alternative scheme would ‘be tied to a government austerity measure policy’?

“If the latter is true, then Baroness Deech has both accused the AG of lying and told us that our regulator has not disclosed the real basis for agreeing this scheme until now. For the record, I don’t believe that is what is being said: instead it simply shows that the thinking is muddy.”

In a sideswipe at plea-only advocates, the silk said QASA “imposes a bizarre and irrational cut off: namely what a client decides to do about plea at a random point in time, and then assumes that nothing has to be done but mitigate. That simply is not what happens.”

He also questioned whether judges were enthusiastic about QASA and suggested they felt bound to go along with it. Also, QASA did not address the conundrum of how to assess quality as opposed to compliance. “The Bar has had that experience already with Barmark and Quality Mark. If the current scheme does not assess quality properly then all the BSB is saying is ‘We must have something. This is something. Therefore we must have this’.”

Mr Myerson said pre-QASA research that failed to distinguish between barristers and solicitor-advocates acting beyond their competence was “inadequate and incomplete”. Equally, the two-year review period built into QASA was insufficient, he said. “Let’s say the reviewers have the humility to identify a dog’s breakfast if that’s what it is – what then happens to the people adversely affected by two years of cock-up. Is the BSB going to compensate them?

Robert Woodcock QC, of KBW, responded: “So then, here it is. The Bar cannot be trusted to police its own standards, the bench is agreed and bases this upon evidence to which we are not privy, we are going to be assessed by some organisation or other so better the BSB because it is our own (!) than one imposed upon us (unlike this one of course), we are in a period of universal austerity so brace yourselves because BVT/OCOF is coming and we are all ungrateful for what is being done our behalf.”

Nicholas Lumley QC, of New Park Court chambers, also in Leeds, said he “wholeheartedly” agreed with Mr Myerson, adding: “Assuring the public of the quality of the service we provide is not something of which we should be afraid. However, the means to that end, as currently proposed by the BSB, is something of which the public should be afraid.”

Tags: , ,



4 Responses to “The “noisy minority” of barristers opposed to QASA hit back at BSB claims”

  1. There are so many reasons why an advocate may choose to look stupid, even incompetent, in the interests of a defendant that attempting an assessment will often be a futile exercise. Sometimes the most important part of what we do is listening and explaining, not the flamboyant antics which might appeal to an assessor. An advocate should not have to be looking anxiously at a judge, hopeful of being assessed favourably. The whole concept is an attack on our professional independence and should be scrapped.

  2. Jan Davies on March 21st, 2013 at 1:42 pm
  3. The Government agenda for the Bar is clear. Having starved us for the last few years, they are now setting about trying to get us to eat each other. “Quality control?” well that might be half right. It’s about control for sure, but it certainly ISN’T about quality. It never was, it never has been and in future when what was a body of experience and integrity that took nearly a thousand years of social evolution to develop has been set fire to, society will be much the poorer for it.

  4. chris morrison on March 21st, 2013 at 2:09 pm
  5. I thought the BSB was supposed to be a professional regulator. If so, it has no business criticising the political views of barristers.

  6. Jim Earle on March 21st, 2013 at 10:35 pm
  7. Who is this person? How can the BSB be chaired by someone who has never practised and is so plainly out of touch with the bar. Standards have been maintained for hundreds of years on simple basis that if you are useless you won’t get another case if you are good you will.

  8. NIck James on March 22nd, 2013 at 9:00 am

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

Know your client checks – A lesson from BHS

Paul-Bennett for Legal Futures

As you will be aware, it is a legal requirement for advisory firms to carry out ‘know your client’ checks. The purpose of doing so is to confirm your client’s identity and to seek to provide protection in respect of anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing laws. The BHS experience before the House of Commons’ work and pensions committee and business, innovation and skills committee shows that firms need to think beyond AML obligations.

September 29th, 2016