*/
Regulation is not about consensus, Sir David Clementi told the audience at the second annual Clementi Debate.
The debate, which took place in front of an invited audience in Inner Temple Hall on 2 April, was entitled “Quality at what cost?” It might also have been called “embracing change”.
Sir David, who was the panel chairman, gave credit to the Bar for bringing his scheme into being before the Legal Services Act 2007. However, he stressed that the independence of the regulator needs to be demonstrated.
The discussion was lively. Derek Wood QC, who chaired the working party on the BVC, said that many students did not meet the exacting standards of temperament and talent. Patricia Robertson QC looked to individual responsibility as the key to ensuring quality. “Change is with us,” she warned; barristers will seek employment with LDPs and be regulated other than by the BSB.
There was a difference of opinion on how best to define good regulation. Chris Graham (retiring lay member of the BSB and Information Commissioner designate) thought the key was “finger on the pulse regulation”. He pointed warningly to the coat of arms of Lord Halsbury, who had been willing to “die in the last ditch” in opposition to the Parliament Act 1911. He said he was happy for the BSB to be judged by the fruits of its labour. David Edmunds, Chair of the LSB, thought on the other hand that “proportionate regulation” was the right phrase. He reminded everyone that the Legal Services Act was about “opportunity”, not “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
There was also a warning from Sam Stein, a new Silk, who sombrely reminded the gathering that what is happening in publicly funded work is not consistent with access to justice.
The discussion was opened and closed by Baroness Deech, Chair of the BSB, who knows about the “reasonable man”: born in Clapham, she spent her early childhood taking the local omnibus.
The debate, which took place in front of an invited audience in Inner Temple Hall on 2 April, was entitled “Quality at what cost?” It might also have been called “embracing change”.
Sir David, who was the panel chairman, gave credit to the Bar for bringing his scheme into being before the Legal Services Act 2007. However, he stressed that the independence of the regulator needs to be demonstrated.
The discussion was lively. Derek Wood QC, who chaired the working party on the BVC, said that many students did not meet the exacting standards of temperament and talent. Patricia Robertson QC looked to individual responsibility as the key to ensuring quality. “Change is with us,” she warned; barristers will seek employment with LDPs and be regulated other than by the BSB.
There was a difference of opinion on how best to define good regulation. Chris Graham (retiring lay member of the BSB and Information Commissioner designate) thought the key was “finger on the pulse regulation”. He pointed warningly to the coat of arms of Lord Halsbury, who had been willing to “die in the last ditch” in opposition to the Parliament Act 1911. He said he was happy for the BSB to be judged by the fruits of its labour. David Edmunds, Chair of the LSB, thought on the other hand that “proportionate regulation” was the right phrase. He reminded everyone that the Legal Services Act was about “opportunity”, not “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
There was also a warning from Sam Stein, a new Silk, who sombrely reminded the gathering that what is happening in publicly funded work is not consistent with access to justice.
The discussion was opened and closed by Baroness Deech, Chair of the BSB, who knows about the “reasonable man”: born in Clapham, she spent her early childhood taking the local omnibus.
Regulation is not about consensus, Sir David Clementi told the audience at the second annual Clementi Debate.
As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible
Casey Randall explains how complex relationship DNA tests can best be used – and interpreted – by counsel
Casey Randall, Head of DNA at AlphaBiolabs, explores what barristers need to know about DNA testing for immigration, including when a client might wish to submit DNA evidence, and which relationship tests are best for immigration applications
Julian Morgan reminds barristers of the top five areas to consider before 5 April
The case ofR v Brecanihas complicated matters for defence lawyers. Emma Fielding talks to gang culture expert, Dr Simon Harding about County Lines, exploitation and modern slavery
Barristers are particularly at risk of burnout because of the nature of our work and our approach to it but it doesnt have to be this way. Jade Bucklow explores how culture, work and lifestyle changes can rejuvinate our mental health...
Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the Court of Appeal judgment inR v Daniels By Abigail Bright
The Schools Consent Project (SCP) is educating tens of thousands of teenagers about the law around consent to challenge and change what is now endemic behaviour. Here, its founder, barrister Kate Parker talks to Chris Henley QC about SCPs work and its association with Jodie Comers West End playPrima Facie, in which she plays a criminal barrister who is sexually assaulted
As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address