Report this comment to a moderator

Time to cut the silken thread

I'd like to thank Milly and Jeremy for their interesting and thoughtful responses to my op-ed article. In part I agree with Milly about evidenced-based research--it's what I do! However, this is one area where we lack it. As Jeremy says there is an issue about continuing monitoring of this "kite mark". Unlike doctors, who undergo continuing vetting as to their skills, barristers seem to have to go over this hurdle only once. That isn't good enough. I don't even disagree with Milly's opinion on the teaching of advocacy. I'm glad it happens. But there is something a little strange where a barrister is expected to be of sufficient seniority to apply and then can only refer to cases of the last two years. Poor Rumpole, he never would have been able to include that classic case the Penge Bungalow murders if he'd applied. Nevertheless, advocacy as a specialism is still too vague. It would be rather like a surgeon being a good surgeon, but I'd like to know who's the best heart surgeon, for example. Both Milly and Jeremy may not like my bringing up diversity but it is a significant issue in our society and it's not going away. While trends may be improving, I fear if we had to wait on the glacial pace at which they are improving, well something might happen to hell. But don't forget diversity is in the Legal Services Act--it must be improved. I'm not using language to have a pop but rather to puncture some of the taken-for-granted symbols that the Bar and the legal profession invokes to protect itself. I would actually like to see the Bar much more open to research, which would ultimately benefit it. Do clients understand? Not all. Some sophisticated ones do (including a raft of Russian oligarchs) but most people haven't a clue what a barrister is let alone a QC. Shall i mention wigs and gowns too? Enough said for now and thank you.

10-Apr-2012

5:55 pm