*/
Education and training for the Bar is a complex process which, first and foremost, needs to be approached in an holistic way. The different stages - academic, vocational and pupillage, not to mention further continued professional development (CPD) for new and experienced practitioners - need to be considered as part of an overall ‘run-through’ process. They should not be considered ‘in silos’. For this reason, the Bar Standards Board is most fortunate that Derek Wood QC, having chaired both the Review of the BVC and the Review of Pupillage, is now leading a major review of CPD.
CPD requirements were first introduced to New Practitioners at the Bar in October 1997 and this is now mandatory for all practising barristers. Since 2006, the Bar Standards Board has a duty to ensure that the standards and quality of the courses is consistent, that CPD is fit for purpose, and that CPD is undertaken by practitioners in line with requirements.
At times, CPD has been subject to scrutiny and some criticism from members of the Bar. On occasion, systems for its monitoring and approval have been described as ‘overly bureaucratic’. That said, the vast majority of CPD provision is clearly of high quality as lectures, seminars and courses are increasingly being made available to members of the profession by a range of providers (varying from Inns,
Circuits and SBAs to commercial providers). There is, however, a need to ensure that both the developmental activities and the systems for their approval are effective, bearing in mind of course that it is always possible to learn from experience and that there is always room for improvement. As such, a major review of CPD is being conducted to consider all aspects of CPD.
In order to consider whether the current content and structure of CPD is most appropriate, the Group will firstly take into account the work that has already been done on this subject. Lord Neuberger, in his report, made recommendations regarding CPD, including mandatory Equality & Diversity Training. Likewise, the recent Hirst Review considered the coordination of post-qualification training at the Bar and found some substantial differences between commercial providers and Inns, Circuits and Specialist Bar Associations. Other recommendations from various groups and committees have included the possible increase of compulsory Advocacy training (for 4-6 years call) and possible compulsory training in other specific areas, such as costs.
The Working Group will therefore consider and make recommendations on a wide range of key issues that have been identified. The overarching theme is that of quality. It is also vital to consider the current structure and content of CPD and indeed whether CPD itself achieves its purpose. Linked to this, of course, is the issue of the recent fee structure for CPD accreditation and fee waivers system, which have been in place since 2008.
Remit
In determining the standards for training and the standards for accredited CPD providers, the Working Group will carefully consider the mechanisms for approval of CPD providers and courses. In fact, the group will firstly consider whether CPD itself operates effectively in its current form and whether the accreditation processes are necessary. AllCPD documentation, including the application forms for
accreditation and the ‘General Guide to CPD’, which refers to the rules that govern CPD, will be reviewed. The Working Group will also consider Annex C of the Code of Conduct, which deals with the current system for compliance, including the return of the CPD record and the requisite number of hours.
Methodology
A high profile Working Group has again been convened (as for the previous two reviews) in order to address all these major issues. Care was taken to ensure that all key interests are represented, whilst keeping the group small enough to ensure an effective way of working. Membership therefore includes silks (some with judiciary experience), members of the Bar Standards Board itself, the BSB Education & TrainingCommittee and CPD Sub Committee, and a member of the Employed Bar. A lay perspective is provided by members of other professions (accountancy and medical). Full details of the membership and terms of reference are available on the BSB website.
As with the Review of the BVC and Pupillage, the Working Group will avoid the production of lengthy consultation documents but rather carry out extensive face-to-face meetings and discussions with the Inns, COIC, Circuits, Specialist Bar Associations, BSB and Bar Council Committees, chambers, barristers and commercial CPD providers. This evidence based approach will be used as the foundation for discussion, with pertinent statistical information. Further information will be provided as the review progresses, which is expected to report to the December 2010 meeting of the Bar Standards Board.
Education and Training for the Bar at all levels is crucial for the maintenance of quality and standards in the profession - hence the importance of a review of CPD to follow on from the review of the BVC and the review of Pupillage. Comments on the scope of the review, or views about CPD in general may be sent to: Elizabeth Prats, Continuing Education Officer, Bar Standards Board
(cpd@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk).
At times, CPD has been subject to scrutiny and some criticism from members of the Bar. On occasion, systems for its monitoring and approval have been described as ‘overly bureaucratic’. That said, the vast majority of CPD provision is clearly of high quality as lectures, seminars and courses are increasingly being made available to members of the profession by a range of providers (varying from Inns,
Circuits and SBAs to commercial providers). There is, however, a need to ensure that both the developmental activities and the systems for their approval are effective, bearing in mind of course that it is always possible to learn from experience and that there is always room for improvement. As such, a major review of CPD is being conducted to consider all aspects of CPD.
In order to consider whether the current content and structure of CPD is most appropriate, the Group will firstly take into account the work that has already been done on this subject. Lord Neuberger, in his report, made recommendations regarding CPD, including mandatory Equality & Diversity Training. Likewise, the recent Hirst Review considered the coordination of post-qualification training at the Bar and found some substantial differences between commercial providers and Inns, Circuits and Specialist Bar Associations. Other recommendations from various groups and committees have included the possible increase of compulsory Advocacy training (for 4-6 years call) and possible compulsory training in other specific areas, such as costs.
The Working Group will therefore consider and make recommendations on a wide range of key issues that have been identified. The overarching theme is that of quality. It is also vital to consider the current structure and content of CPD and indeed whether CPD itself achieves its purpose. Linked to this, of course, is the issue of the recent fee structure for CPD accreditation and fee waivers system, which have been in place since 2008.
Remit
In determining the standards for training and the standards for accredited CPD providers, the Working Group will carefully consider the mechanisms for approval of CPD providers and courses. In fact, the group will firstly consider whether CPD itself operates effectively in its current form and whether the accreditation processes are necessary. AllCPD documentation, including the application forms for
accreditation and the ‘General Guide to CPD’, which refers to the rules that govern CPD, will be reviewed. The Working Group will also consider Annex C of the Code of Conduct, which deals with the current system for compliance, including the return of the CPD record and the requisite number of hours.
Methodology
A high profile Working Group has again been convened (as for the previous two reviews) in order to address all these major issues. Care was taken to ensure that all key interests are represented, whilst keeping the group small enough to ensure an effective way of working. Membership therefore includes silks (some with judiciary experience), members of the Bar Standards Board itself, the BSB Education & TrainingCommittee and CPD Sub Committee, and a member of the Employed Bar. A lay perspective is provided by members of other professions (accountancy and medical). Full details of the membership and terms of reference are available on the BSB website.
As with the Review of the BVC and Pupillage, the Working Group will avoid the production of lengthy consultation documents but rather carry out extensive face-to-face meetings and discussions with the Inns, COIC, Circuits, Specialist Bar Associations, BSB and Bar Council Committees, chambers, barristers and commercial CPD providers. This evidence based approach will be used as the foundation for discussion, with pertinent statistical information. Further information will be provided as the review progresses, which is expected to report to the December 2010 meeting of the Bar Standards Board.
Education and Training for the Bar at all levels is crucial for the maintenance of quality and standards in the profession - hence the importance of a review of CPD to follow on from the review of the BVC and the review of Pupillage. Comments on the scope of the review, or views about CPD in general may be sent to: Elizabeth Prats, Continuing Education Officer, Bar Standards Board
(cpd@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk).
Education and training for the Bar is a complex process which, first and foremost, needs to be approached in an holistic way. The different stages - academic, vocational and pupillage, not to mention further continued professional development (CPD) for new and experienced practitioners - need to be considered as part of an overall ‘run-through’ process. They should not be considered ‘in silos’. For this reason, the Bar Standards Board is most fortunate that Derek Wood QC, having chaired both the Review of the BVC and the Review of Pupillage, is now leading a major review of CPD.
CPD requirements were first introduced to New Practitioners at the Bar in October 1997 and this is now mandatory for all practising barristers. Since 2006, the Bar Standards Board has a duty to ensure that the standards and quality of the courses is consistent, that CPD is fit for purpose, and that CPD is undertaken by practitioners in line with requirements.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Adele Akers’ reflections on health and wellbeing support at the very junior end of the Bar
Not one to say, ‘I told you so,’ Sam Thomas continues his cyber series with the key learnings from the major supply chain attack affecting 80 law firms and at least one set of chambers at the end of 2023
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
