Incompetent barristers whose courtroom advocacy falls below par will be referred by judges and colleagues to a “remedial” panel to bring them up to scratch, under measures proposed today. The Bar Council is also proposing a grading scheme to grade barristers who do legal aid work according to proficiency and experience.

The measures are part of a package of proposals being put out for consultation by the Bar Council, the body that represents 14,000 barristers in England and Wales.

The proposed Bar quality advisory panel will deal with barristers whose advocacy or advice is regarded as "shoddy" or below par.

The panel will offer help to the barrister to bring his or her service up to standard.

Second, the paper proposes a quality assurance grading scheme for barristers doing legal-aid work which will rate barristers by experience and ability.

Such a scheme was recommended in the recent report on the legal aid service, by Lord Carter of Coles and is to be piloted by the Legal Services Commission, which runs legal aid, in the autumn.

Today’s paper also proposes regular “servicing“ for qualified barristers, with those who have been qualified for between four to six years doing three hours training a year.

Geoffrey Vos, QC, the Bar chairman, said: "The biggest selling points for the profession are the high quality of service it offers, and the value for money it provides.

“The Bar Council wishes to ensure that barristers aspire to and achieve excellence, so that the future of the profession is assured.” He said that the proposed Bar quality assurance panel would provide a mechanism through which judges and fellow professionals can refer a barrister’s conduct to a panel, which will act as adviser and helper, rather than as a disciplinary body.

“The panel will not be regulatory in any sense. It will not make formal complaints. It will advise a barrister how to improve, whether by taking advocacy training or by other means.” He added: “Quality control is not a threat to our independence. And it must not become burdensome or disruptive.

“It is, however, a necessary part of growing up. We are a big profession now, attracting entrants from all backgrounds. We must be able to produce evidence for our oft-repeated assertion that we provide the highest quality advocacy and advice available anywhere.’ He said that some kind of quality control was particularly needed in the field of publicly-funded work because solicitors were rarely present in court to observe the quality of the barrister’s performance as with private cases.

Ruth Evans, Chair of the Bar Standards Board, the body in charge of standards and regulation of barristers, today welcomed the Bar Council’s consultation on quality assurance of advocacy.

She said: “It is clearly in the public interest that barristers reach an appropriate level of competence and it is the Board’s duty to ensure that they do.

“We believe it is also in the interests of the profession to be able to demonstrate that it consistently delivers the highest standards of service to its clients and that it is prepared to recognise where improvements can be made.

“No profession can afford to carry individuals who are sub-standard or who let the profession down. The type of initiatives included in the Bar Council’s consultation clearly illustrate the Bar’s commitment to continuous improvement and to demonstrating that more can be done."

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers