Geoffrey Vos QC

What is your overall mission this year as chair of the Bar?

At the top of the agenda is 'quality'. I am looking to encourage the profession to maintain and enhance its quality, on the basis that this is crucial to the survival of the profession. Quality feeds into every aspect of the Bar Council's work. For example, it is crucial to fees '“ in that the work must be of the highest quality to justify them '“ it is crucial to entry to the Bar '“ as we need those of the highest quality from all backgrounds '“ and to regulation '“ as the Bar Standards Board's job will be to ensure that quality remains high.

Starting with entry to the Bar '“ how are you hoping change the current situation?

We must work out a way of getting better information about the profession to young people and particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We haven't always been good at this, and we have not always succeeded in combating the public perception of the profession as one for privileged people. We want to change this perception and the reality.

And how do you start going about this?

The main challenges we face are that students are coming out of university with huge debts, then have to pay more for the Bar Vocational Course, and even after this they are not certain of getting a pupillage. We need to find a way of ensuring that the best people from all backgrounds have the same opportunities of becoming a barrister. Last year, Stephen Hockman QC and I started a working group chaired by Lord Justice Neuberger, looking at these issues and ways of getting better information to schools and universities. We are looking at some sort of loan scheme that would be available to everybody. It would not take the risk element away '“ that is inevitable, but it would create opportunities for all students. You want the best talent to rise to the top, but it can only do so if people from all parts of Society can start the course. It is unrealistic to think that everybody can be funded, but it is important to provide a level playing field.

Despite your admission that the Bar could have better representation from lower socio-economic classes '“ do you think the public has the wrong perception?

The press seems to focus on publicising the highly paid barristers, as this provides the sensational stories. The truth of the matter is that 99 per cent of barristers carrying out publicly funded work are on a wage no higher than is available in other publicly funded occupations. I don't think the public realises how much work the Bar does for underprivileged parts of the community.

And what about the higher-earning lawyers at other end of the scale?

The Chancery and Commercial Bars are a huge asset to the UK. The high standard of their work and their standing across the globe is something we should shout about. We already export a lot of our services overseas. In April, I shall be visiting India to meet members of the business community to promote the Bar, and the high quality of its arbitration work. Likewise, I am hoping to visit China, with the Law Society, where we hope to persuade the Chinese business community that, in international dealings, they can beneficially specify English law in their multi-national agreements, with London arbitration as a way of giving confidence to investors.

Turning to the changes afoot under the Legal Services Bill '“ what stage are you at in addressing these?

The Bill is currently before the Lords and we are working with the Law Society to suggest some amendments. Our first concern is over the appointment of Legal Services Board (LSB) members '“ we want appointments to be made not just by the Lord Chancellor, but with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, we are calling for there to be a staged threshold for LSB intervention with front-line regulators (FLRs).

I also know you have expressed unhappiness at the proposals for a new, single complaints handling body for legal services'¦

We feel strongly that there should be a power of delegation from the new Office of Legal Complaints (OLC) to FLRs, when they have a demonstrably good record of servicing complaints. We are not criticising the single front door idea, and accept that consumers should have one port of call for complaints '“ it's just what happens when they're through the door. We have an excellent record of handling complaints and taking that service away from the Bar would lead to duplication of work and higher costs.

And what other issues are you looking at?

The Bar Council is currently undertaking a consultation on who we should regulate. In the context of the Legal Services Bill we need to discuss whether we should regulate barristers who choose to practice in other environments, such as partnerships or alternative business structures. It should be very interesting.

Andrew Towler set the questions

Copyright & permissions