Law Society intervenes in QASA judicial review


Law Society: QASA is disproportionate

The Law Society has been granted permission to intervene in the judicial review of the legality of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

The challenge to the Legal Services Board’s approval of QASA argues that it “offends fundamental issues of justice”.

The society said it is intervening in the case “in the best interests of all advocates”.

In a statement, it said: “The society will be presenting additional arguments to the court that the Scheme is disproportionate to the perceived problem of advocacy standards and is procedurally unfair.

“The society has consistently voiced its concerns about the scheme, particularly in respect of proportionality and the implications of judicial evaluation.”

The case, which has been listed for hearing at the end of November, has been brought by four barristers – Katherine Lumsdon, Rufus Taylor, David Howker QC and Christopher Heretson – with the backing of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA). They are being represented pro bono.

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

At the time the judicial review was launched, CBA chairman Nigel Lithman QC said: “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.”

Earlier this month Mr Justice Ouseley limiting the combined costs the claimants would have to pay the LSB and the Bar Standards Board in the event they lost to £150,000.

Tags:




Blog


A letter from the SRA? Your first reaction matters

An email from the SRA has a way of rearranging a working day. It arrives in the same inbox as everything else, often in the same measured tone, yet it carries a different weight.


Regulate sole practices on evidence, not turnover

For a sole practice, the SRA’s plan that I cannot hold a compliance role if my firm has more than £600,000 of turnover is not a measure of risk. It is a ceiling on growth.


Is Google becoming pay-to-play for law firms?

For years, law firms have been told that SEO is the long-term alternative to paying for every click. That principle hasn’t disappeared but search results have changed significantly.


Loading animation