*/
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).
Lords Reed and Toulson ruled that the controversial accreditation scheme was the “only way” to provide the desired level of protection to the public, and confirmed that it was lawful and proportionate.
Previously, the High Court and Court of Appeal had also rejected the attempt to overturn the Legal Service’s Board’s approval of the scheme granted in 2013.
The challenge to QASA, which was designed by the three main legal regulators – the Bar Standards Board, Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and CILEx Regulation – had been brought in the name of four criminal barristers.
Welcoming the judgment, Dr Vanessa Davies, BSB director general, said: “The objective of providing a high level of public protection through a precautionary scheme has long been the underlying principle behind QASA.
“Given the length of time that has passed since the scheme was approved by the LSB, we need to consider the scheme’s implementation and likely timescales involved.”
The Criminal Bar Association, which financially backed the challenge, said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. It added: “The CBA remains of the view that the scheme is a bad one.”
Meanwhile the BSB has begun a consultation on reforming its disciplinary tribunal system.
Proposed changes include modernising terminology, reducing the role of the Inns of Court, extending the regulator’s ability to appeal the outcome of disciplinary tribunals and limiting the costs claimed by barristers who represent themselves.
The BSB is also seeking views on measures to mitigate the costs of the disciplinary system, replacing all five-person panels with three-person panels, and shifting the decision on the readmission of disbarred barristers from the Inns of Court to itself.
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).
Lords Reed and Toulson ruled that the controversial accreditation scheme was the “only way” to provide the desired level of protection to the public, and confirmed that it was lawful and proportionate.
Previously, the High Court and Court of Appeal had also rejected the attempt to overturn the Legal Service’s Board’s approval of the scheme granted in 2013.
The challenge to QASA, which was designed by the three main legal regulators – the Bar Standards Board, Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and CILEx Regulation – had been brought in the name of four criminal barristers.
Welcoming the judgment, Dr Vanessa Davies, BSB director general, said: “The objective of providing a high level of public protection through a precautionary scheme has long been the underlying principle behind QASA.
“Given the length of time that has passed since the scheme was approved by the LSB, we need to consider the scheme’s implementation and likely timescales involved.”
The Criminal Bar Association, which financially backed the challenge, said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. It added: “The CBA remains of the view that the scheme is a bad one.”
Meanwhile the BSB has begun a consultation on reforming its disciplinary tribunal system.
Proposed changes include modernising terminology, reducing the role of the Inns of Court, extending the regulator’s ability to appeal the outcome of disciplinary tribunals and limiting the costs claimed by barristers who represent themselves.
The BSB is also seeking views on measures to mitigate the costs of the disciplinary system, replacing all five-person panels with three-person panels, and shifting the decision on the readmission of disbarred barristers from the Inns of Court to itself.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
Kindness Ambassadors – coming to a courtroom near you! Valerie Charbit, Nicola Shannon KC and Professor Robin Banerjee update readers on the second phase of the project examining, and promoting, the impact of kindness and how it can fit into an adversarial system
