Moves to introduce quality standards for advocates should involve a higher hurdle for those who mainly represent lay clients, ILEX has said.

The advocacy scheme being introduced by ILEX Professional Standards, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board needs to root out those advocates who are not fit to represent people even though they have achieved the qualification, ILEX said in its response to a joint consultation issued by the three regulators.

Saying that success as an advocate 'should not wholly be dependant on the possession of a qualification in advocacy alone', ILEX explained that it needs to be recognised that not all those duly qualified can or will succeed in their chosen profession'.

It continued: 'A common set of advocacy standards should endeavour to continue to encourage good advocates whilst at the same time identify those practitioners that tarnish the majority. Consideration needs to be given to requiring more evidence from those advocates who, in the main, represent lay as apposed to professional clients. The professional client will, most often, be better to judge the advocacy of representation and will determine whether to continue to instruct such an advocate.'

ILEX agreed in principle with the proposal for common standards for all advocates, whether legal executive, barrister or solicitor, but said that the proposed standards should give far greater emphasis to the high moral and ethical standards to which all advocates have to adhere.

The response noted that the proposed standards for criminal advocates – which is the first area that will be subjected to common standards – do not make reference to specific qualifications and training needed to undertake advocacy, requiring instead that a criminal advocate 'only undertakes advocacy in a case in which they have knowledge, experience and skills required for that case'.

ILEX said: 'It is right and, the public interest demands, that those seeking to become advocates undertake additional training, whether that is in professional law schools, or during practical training or by training by the professional bodies, to equip them with the skills of becoming a competent advocate.'

ILEX also expressed concern that the proposed standards 'appear slanted towards the barrister or solicitor perspective: not all would apply to legal executive criminal advocates'. It pointed to one (optional) criterion on leading an advocacy team, 'which is not really applicable to legal executive advocates as they will not normally be in charge of an advocacy team'.