What is going on here?
Is Grayling looking for a new “quality standard” over and above SQM/Lexcel and/or QM for the Bar? Or does he just not understand the 20-year quality assurance “experiment” we have all been through? Either seems possible, though generalized confusion and bad briefing by MoJ officials seems most likely of all.
A failure to deliver this standard will result in “a process of Peer Review” being used.
Peer Review dear oh dear who passed on that gem of a solution I wonder?
Now here’s the first thing; just as PCT needs bidders, “Peer Review” needs Peers. I’d wager a significant amount of money that this scheme is going to fall at that first hurdle.
And the second thing; has nobody at the LAA, told the MoJ to tell him that PR is now a fairly tarnished version of the “gold standard” it was once touted to be? Guess not.
Well then here is an executive summary of the half a dozen years when it was active.
Ultimately it was not what it was sold as, by the IALS.
It became a highly subjective assessment of key “service standards” rather than of genuine substantive quality of legal advice.
Consistency was never properly managed consequently there was an unaccountable variety in results
It turned into a file “beauty parade” open to influence by the application of a minimal amount of “make up”
Took no account of results – we invented the “O” Level Maths test – 1 point for the right answer, 9 for showing your working out.
It is a massively slow and cumbersome process and even if Peers were found and (re)trained there is no way 1,600 firms could be processed for “market remodeling” purposes
A reasonable evaluation of its operation would be, at best, “did not do what it said on the tin”
So Mr Grayling, Peer Review – good luck with that one.
