---

Legal Services Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 565: 565: Before Clause 174, insert the following new Clause— ““Unqualified person not to pretend to be a barrister (1) It is an offence for a person who is not a barrister— (a) wilfully to pretend to be a barrister, or (b) with the intention of implying falsely that that person is a barrister to take or use any name, title or description. (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both). (3) In relation to an offence under subsection (1) committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (2)(a) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 629 and 720. I said on the last day in Committee that I would take away the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on barristers and the role of the Inns of Court. I have now tabled these amendments which seek to address his concern by ensuring that the Bill acknowledges and defines the term ““barrister””, creates a new offence of pretending to be a barrister when not qualified, and recognises the extremely important and valuable role played by the Inns of Court in training barristers. The Inns’ role in calling and disbarring barristers is currently recognised in statute under Section 31 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in respect of rights of audience. However, as a result of the changes to the way in which reserved legal activities will be granted in the future, it has been necessary to repeal that section. These amendments seek to address any imbalance caused and ensure that the public, consumers and members of the profession can be confident that any person using the title ““barrister”” has been properly educated and trained, and that they are appropriately regulated. The offence provision is important as it brings parity with offences in respect of solicitors under Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974, so consumers can be confident that the same rules apply for both recognised professions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will feel that I have reflected his concerns appropriately in this amendment. I beg to move.