---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 151: 151: After Clause 173, insert the following new Clause— ““Barristers Barristers (1) A person may not be authorised to carry on a reserved legal activity as a barrister unless he has been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court and is not disbarred by order of an Inn of Court. (2) References in this Act to a barrister are to a person— (a) who has been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court and is not disbarred by order of an Inn of Court, and (b) (where the context so requires) who is authorised to practise as a barrister.”” The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 156. The Minister will be relieved to know that these are not about Schedule 16. The amendments concern the definition of ““barrister”” and the position of the Inns of Court in relation to it. The Inns of Court, the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board believe that the role of the Inns in calling to the Bar those who exercise rights of audience as barristers should be recognised in the Bill to protect the interests of consumers. Consumers who engage the services of a legal practitioner called a barrister are entitled to know that the person whom they instruct has completed the training and education required by the Inns. The Bill should, accordingly, be amended so that Clause 173 builds on the previous legislation in this area by continuing to provide statutory recognition of the Inns’ important role in this respect. The four Inns of Court—Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple and Gray’s Inn—are societies of lawyers which, for more than five centuries, have had the responsibility for educating and training their members, as well as calling to the Bar those members who have qualified to practise. The education and qualification of students and barristers continues to be the core activity of the Inns, bringing together students, practitioners and judges in the communal enterprise of learning excellence in advocacy and legal ethics. Each year, the Inns of Court collectively spend in excess of £6.5 million on education, training and scholarships. In addition, they benefit from both practitioner and judicial members giving freely of their time and expertise to provide education and training. The contribution that they make through their education and training programmes, particularly in advocacy, is unique. It is in the public interest that the Inns’ role is preserved so that the Bar can ensure that standards are both maintained and enhanced. That will ensure that the public can have confidence that members of the profession will provide the highest-quality legal representation and advice. Both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the chairman of the Joint Committee, acknowledged the important work of the Inns of Court in education, training and competence in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Section 31 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as substituted by Section 36 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, recognises the Inns of Court’s role in calling persons to the Bar. Section 36(1) states: "““Every barrister shall be deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar a right of audience before every court in relation to all proceedings””." Section 36(3) continues: "““A person shall not have a right of audience by virtue of subsection (1) if … he has not been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court””." There is a strong public interest in amending the Bill in order to recognise that the only people who can call themselves barristers, and practise under that description, are those who have been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court and are therefore subject, and continue to be subject, to training and education in the Inns. The proposed new clause would retain the important role played by the Inns of Court set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It ensures that a person cannot be authorised to practise as a barrister under the regulatory arrangements of an approved regulator unless he or she has been called to the Bar and, of course, is not disbarred. It also supplies a definition of ““barrister”” that features in various provisions. By contrast, however, the expression ““solicitor”” is defined. Some of but not all the Bill’s references to a barrister are intended to relate to a barrister authorised to practise as such; hence proposed new subsection (2)(b). That will include a person authorised to practise during the transitional period, in accordance with paragraph 6(1)(a) of Schedule 22. I beg to move.