BSB presses ahead with QASA preparations despite judicial review


Costs: regulators agree to waive entitlement

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has pledged to continue with preparations for the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) notwithstanding the judicial review against the scheme launched last week.

Meanwhile, Criminal Bar Association (CBA) chairman Nigel Lithman QC has criticised the BSB for its “mean” position over the costs of the JR.

The JR is being brought against the Legal Services Board, with the BSB, Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX Professional Standards served as interested parties.

In a statement issued yesterday, the BSB said the parties have agreed a timetable which will mean that, if permission is granted for the JR, the case can be heard and decided “well before any assessments are in fact made and indeed before the first phase of registration ends”.

The BSB said it had embarked upon drop-in sessions and other work in preparation for QASA before the JR application was launched. “QASA has been the subject of extensive consultation. The claimants have not sought a stay of the preparatory steps which are being made for the implementation of QASA.

“Having considered the matter carefully the BSB will continue with the preparatory work for QASA, which includes opening the scheme for registration on 30 September in the Midland and Western circuits.”

In his weekly message to members yesterday, Mr Lithman said the CBA has indemnified the action, while its lawyers are acting pro bono. Further, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX Professional Standards have indicated that they will agree to waive costs should they arise.

The BSB has not yet followed suit. He said: “Not to do so shows a fundamental meanness of spirit, a singularly unattractive trait. Perhaps they are banking on the fact that to continue to hearing might bankrupt the CBA? The CBA has some limited funds put by for a rainy day. It’s pouring.”

A BSB spokeswoman said: “It is not clear to us on what this assertion is based. We are not prepared to comment on the position of costs as this will ultimately be for the court to decide. In formulating any position on costs, the BSB will take into account the public interest and the interests of all the members of the regulated community.”

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

13 November 2019

The October PII renewal: Why the market changed

Since the abolition of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, the October professional indemnity insurance renewal season has always been a challenge, but this year most law firms saw their premiums go up.

Read More

Loading animation