Closed Consultation

Joint Advocacy Group consultation on regulatory changes to support the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (Crime)

8 November 2011

The deadline for submission of responses to this consultation was 7 November 2011.
The information on this page is for reference purposes only.
An analysis of responses to the consultation is in progress.

The Joint Advocacy Group

The Joint Advocacy Group (JAG) which comprises the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS) as the principal regulators of legal advocacy, was established in October 2009 to develop a scheme for the quality assurance of advocates.

JAG comprises representatives from each of the three regulators. JAG's terms of reference are

to develop, consult upon and implement common standards of advocacy,
to build on existing quality assurance arrangements and advocacy expertise,
to develop a proportionate and consistent means to ensure that advocates meet and maintain those standards in the public interest,
to report its findings to its respective regulatory boards and committees.

The Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (Crime) (QASA)

In developing the scheme, JAG has conducted two earlier consultations; the first on the proposed advocacy standards and the second in July-October 2010 on the proposed design and structure of the scheme. JAG has submitted, through the three regulators, full details of the QASA proposals to the Legal Services Board. It is expected that the proposals will be implemented with effect from December 2011 and the proposed scheme have the following key features.

A single set of standards applying to advocates, and which identifies the skills and behaviours expected of a criminal advocate. The standards are a mandatory requirement for the practice of criminal advocacy.
A statement of standards for advocacy with four levels, and advocates can be assessed, accredited and certified at any of these levels, and progress through the levels, by means of assessment either by
- assessment organisation or
- judicial evaluation.
The levels are connected, through guidance developed by JAG, to levels of cases. The usual expectation will be that advocates will not undertake work at a level higher than that at which they are certified but there will be circumstances in which the parties will agree that the level of advocate required for a case does not need to accord with the level of case.
Advocates who remain at the same level for a prolonged period will be required to be reaccredited after five years of practice at that level. Advocates who, after five years, are not reaccredited or have not progressed to a higher level will not be able to exercise their rights of audience in criminal proceedings until they have reconfirmed their competence to do so.

Additionally, in respect of level 1:

As the entry point into the scheme, each regulator's education and training pathway will prepare each advocate to meet the level 1 standard as the entry point into qualification.
For reaccreditation, advocates who are conducting level 1 advocacy must evidence that, over the period of accreditation, they have demonstrated that they still meet the level 1 standard by the means specified by their regulator.

The purpose of this consultation is to set out the proposed amendments which are required to embed the scheme within the regulatory framework. We seek your views on these. It is inevitable that, over time, the structure of the scheme will be evaluated and reviewed. The amendments to the regulations within this consultation have been drafted to enable that to be a fluid process which does not require further changes to these underpinning regulations.

The body of this consultation consists of three discrete sections, showing, respectively, the necessary changes to the regulatory framework for the SRA, for the IPS and the BSB.

The changes needed are different in respect of each regulator, as they are embedding QASA within different regulatory frameworks. The style of each section, and the questions asked, are therefore different in order to reflect this –

Download proposed changes to regulations

Overview of consultation questions

Please refer to the proposed changes to see the following questions in context.

Solicitors Regulation Authority proposed regulatory changes Q 1.01 Please comment on these amendments in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 6)
Q 1.02 Please add any other comments you may have on these amendments. (See p. 6)
Q 1.03 Please comment on these amendments in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 8)
Q 1.04 Please add any other comments you may have on these amendments. (See p. 8)
Q 1.05 Please comment on this amendment in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 10)
Q 1.06 Please add any other comments you may have on this amendment. (See p. 10)
Q 1.07 Please comment on this amendment in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 12)
Q 1.08 Please add any other comments you may have on this amendment. (See p. 12)
Q 1.09 Please comment on these amendments in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 17)
Q 1.10 Please add any other comments you may have on these amendments. (See p. 17)
Q 1.11 Please comment on these amendments in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 19)
Q 1.12 Please add any other comments you may have on these amendments. (See p. 19)
Q 1.13 Please comment on these amendments in respect of any impacts you foresee on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 21)
Q 1.14 Please add any other comments you may have on these amendments. (See p. 21)
ILEX Professional Standards proposed regulatory changes Q 2.01 Should IPS separate the entry and course criteria from the Rights of Audience Certification Rules. If not please give reasons. (See p. 36)
Q 2.02 Provide any comments you have on the definitions added into the Rules. Do you agree that the definitions adequately reflect the principles of the quality assurance scheme? If not, please indicate any changes that should be made. (See p. 37)
Q 2.03 Do the appeal rules adequately reflect the proposals on appeals developed by JAG? (See p. 38)
Q 2.04 Do the rules adequately reflect the proposals developed by JAG as to reaccreditation. (See p. 39)
Q 2.05 Do the rules adequately reflect the proposals developed by JAG that IPS may receive referrals about the competence of advocates from JAG and seek an independent assessor to assess an advocate. (See p. 40)
Q 2.06 Do the knowledge and experience guidelines, portfolio guidelines, course outcomes and assessment criteria adequately reflect the standards developed for the quality assurance scheme for advocates. (See p. 40)
Bar Standards Board proposed regulatory changes Q 3.01 Comments are welcome on whether the Rules create any difficulty in their application either for individual barristers or for any particular group (protected groups or otherwise) of advocates; (See p. 84)
Q 3.02 Comments are welcome on whether the impact of the Rules on the interests of the proper administration of justice and the rule of law, or on the public interest. (See p. 85)
Q 3.03 Comments are invited on this proposal. (See p. 87)

Back to closed consultations