QASA, the levelling scheme

Another year, another disappointment for solicitor advocates as none of the applicants for silk made the grade.

More disturbing still is the fact that only two had applied. It's not that previous years were much better. The number of applications was just as low last year, the only difference being that both were appointed QCs.

Altogether, only 11 solicitor advocates got silk since the more transparent process was rolled out in 2005-06.

Unsurprisingly, the panel responsible for QC appointments is concerned. One of the aims of the new process was to make it less focused on the Bar and to encourage talented solicitor advocates to apply.

But, even with the reassurance that they will not be treated differently from barrister applicants, solicitor advocates are simply not interested, it seems, in competing for an old-fashioned badge of honour so inherently tied to the Bar.

If the intention behind the modernised QC appointment scheme was to reward talented advocates, whether they are from the Bar or solicitors, it is clearly failing. Setting up a new, profession-neutral benchmark could be a much better option.

Assuming there is a point at all in this kind of scheme '“ which is not necessarily a given in a sector where purchasers of advocacy services have other means of identifying skilled individuals '“ the ideal candidate for this honour would be an expanded QASA, the quality assurance scheme for advocates. It could be applicable to both criminal and civil advocates, and, much like the current QC scheme, it would reward excellence, experience and competence.

Sadly, the various components of the legal profession can't even agree on how QASA should be run.

Speaking at the launch of the Law Society's advocacy section at the end of January, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, tried to unite all advocates around the desirability of a single advocacy quality scheme.

A page was being turned but still the stakeholders squabble. Barristers see solicitor advocates as amateurs, and solicitor advocates think judges are biased because the majority trained as barristers. So, if QASA included an assessment by judges, they say, solicitors wouldn't stand a chance.

And as if there wasn't enough disharmony, another row has erupted between the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Not only does the BSB want to be the regulator of choice for advocates, it now insists that QASA should be based on judicial evaluation.

This painful advocacy turf war is, of course, not being waged to protect professional interests. It is all in the name of the consumer and public interest. But it is going nowhere. So, maybe now would be a good time for this champion of consumer interests, the Legal Services Board, to intervene.