header-logo header-logo

Advocacy tests reform on the cards?

04 September 2019
Issue: 7854 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Proposals could see youth courts added to solicitor advocate remit

Proposals to revise qualifying requirements for solicitor advocates have been launched by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Advocacy on behalf of clients in the senior civil and criminal courts can only be undertaken by solicitor advocates (solicitors who have the Higher Rights of Audience qualification). The SRA proposes adding serious cases in the youth courts to the category of cases reserved for solicitor advocates. Its consultation, ‘Assuring advocacy standards’, due to end on 13 November, proposes introducing revised standards for the Higher Rights of Audience qualification, creating a single, centralised Higher Rights of Audience assessment, and developing more online resources to help solicitors improve their advocacy skills.

The SRA is also seeking feedback on how to make it easier for judges to report any concerns about the quality of advocacy in cases coming before their courts.

The proposals follow suggestions that some judges have concerns about the competence of solicitor advocates appearing before them. These were voiced in the Ministry of Justice’s 2014 Jeffrey Review, while a review into youth courts advocacy proceedings in 2015 by the Bar Standards Board and The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives found advocates were lacking in training in the youth courts.

The SRA says it received 89 complaints from judges about poor advocacy in the three years between January 2015 and February 2018. However, it points out that there is no definitive evidence of these concerns.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘While the majority of solicitors do a good job, we do hear comments that this is not always the case. We are keen to hear from as many people as possible about our proposals to make sure that the advocacy done by solicitors meets our high standards.’

There are currently 6,764 solicitor advocates in England and Wales. According to the SRA, nearly one quarter of these have never undertaken advocacy in a higher court. 

Issue: 7854 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll