Can we avoid catastrophe?

The Legal Services Board has decided that QASA should go ahead, despite the lack of proof that advocacy standards have slipped.

I am no fan of QASA, but in recent months the threat it posed to the profession was overshadowed by the possible introduction of price competitive tendering. Elements of this insane proposal were scrapped last week but there are still many issues in relation to criminal legal aid - for instance, fee cuts of 17.50 per cent spread over two years remain a major concern.

QASA would only give a fig leaf of credibility to the Lord Chancellor so far as his hollow statements regarding the maintenance of a minimum standard of quality are concerned. The scheme remains deeply flawed. Most of the concerns I and others have raised, still remain, with small firms particularly at risk. Jury trials will still become beauty pageants as advocates seek to please judges rather than fearlessly present their client's instructions. While a few judges are solicitors the perception of bias against solicitor advocates will continue.

The duty to tell clients to what level a solicitor can take their case is likely to undermine solicitor-client relationships at an early stage. The only silver lining is that solicitor advocates will now have 24 months in which to obtain the requisite accreditation under the scheme. That might allow some solicitor advocates in smaller firms time to obtain accreditation.

The Legal Services Board should be berated for its blind acceptance that the scheme is in the interest of the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. QASA will turn advocates into a class of judge-pleasing drones devoid of individuality and courage. That is in nobody's interest.