Bar Council slams BSB’s “dilution” of barrister brand


BSB: training rule changes

The Bar Council has reacted with outrage to training reforms that it says would include automatically ‘passporting’ solicitors with rights of audience and academics through qualification as barristers, thus “diluting” the brand.

As its Future Bar Training project heads towards conclusion, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) consulted in July on new rules for its training framework, with the eight-week exercise ending this week.

In its response, the Bar Council warned that in practice the proposed changes would mean that a solicitor granted rights by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – which it claimed had “markedly less strict training requirements”, such as no pupillage – would be entitled to qualify as a barrister.

The Bar Council said: “It will unacceptably dilute the high standards rightly required of practising barristers; and it will provide an easy parallel route to the Bar for those practitioners who have failed the Bar’s entry and training requirements.”

It alleged a further rule change on partial exemptions was “scarcely better” in that it extended the exemption to many more with existing rights of audience, subject to an effective waiver of both the academic and vocational training elements, and also “if the BSB thinks fit”, pupillage.

It said: “It is easy to see that this will be attractive to solicitors who regard admission to the Bar as a badge of achievement, and who will recognise that this route to that badge is fundamentally less arduous than the route barristers currently take.

“It will swell the ranks of the Bar with those who will not have faced the same testing regime, and without giving the undiscerning public any means of distinguishing between the two at the point of instruction.”

The Bar Council objected to allowing any law teacher “of experience and academic distinction” an exemption from academic and legal vocational training. It said this right should not be automatic.

It complained too that a proposal to relax the requirement that a pupil must be individually supervised by a suitably qualified barrister, in the case of sets of chambers and other organisations, would “dilute pupil training”.

The response said: “We view this dilution of the vital work-based component of the pupil’s training as antithetical to the [regulatory objectives]…

“We urge the BSB to introduce appropriate safeguards, to ensure that this dilution does not take place.”

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

22 October 2019

Closing the legal gap through technology

Technology has made few inroads into how most people experience legal services. This is puzzling at a time when technology has transformed so many aspects of our lives, and when the big commercial law firms are investing heavily.

Read More

Loading animation