The doctrine of separation of powers has moved from being constitutionally enshrined to a discarded irrelevance of convenience. Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC is determined to ensure that the independence of the judiciary and its membership is retained as a bulwark against unlawful government actions.

It should now go without saying that when something is important for the legal profession it is equally important for the public whom the legal profession exists to serve and protect.

Without independence from government, lawyers would be unable to carry out their proper role in society to any meaningful extent. The independence of lawyers, from Supreme Court Judges to the most humble practitioner, is something I wish to emphasise.

In Scotland we have recently seen the enactment of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which sets out in legislation the importance of judges remaining free of interference from the Executive. The Act provides a guarantee of continued judicial independence from the First Minister, the Lord Advocate, Scottish Ministers and members of the Scottish Parliament.

This was interpreted in some quarters as mere symbolism, but to have the principle of independence enshrined in a statute should not be underestimated.

Take the example of the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom which opens its doors for the first time on 1 October. The Rt. Hon. Lord Hope of Craighead presented a powerful argument as to why the court should have an independent internet address, instead of “gov.uk”, which implies that it is part of the government rather than a bulwark against unlawful government action. It was an argument he lost but for lawyers the appearance as well as the reality of judicial and legal independence from government is a powerful one.

For the Faculty, the independence argument was crucial in our response to the Legal Services Bill which will shortly embark on its journey through the Scottish Parliament.

Media attention has largely focused on the issue of alternative business structures (ABS) which the Faculty resisted in the case of advocates on the grounds that choice for the users of legal services would be significantly diminished if Scotland’s practising advocates were allowed to enter into partnerships rather than continue to operate as independent sole traders.

An equally important but less noticed aspect of the Bill is how advocates are regulated.

It is often said that advocates are self-regulating but, as a matter of history, that has never been entirely accurate. From at least the 16th century advocates, as members of the College of Justice, were subject to the authority of the Lords of Council and Session and any serious misbehaviour or illegal activity was dealt with by the judges. As far as conduct complaints are concerned, while powers are delegated to the Dean of Faculty, the Faculty is regulated by the courts, and answerable to the Lord President. And of course, claims of inadequate or poor service involving advocates are now dealt with by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

I welcome the fact that the roles, powers and obligations of the Lord President will be clearly articulated in the Legal Services Bill. To make the situation clear and transparent will help to ensure that the Lord President’s role is more widely appreciated and understood.

The Faculty also supports the regulatory objectives set out in the Bill – upholding the rule of law and the administration of justice, protecting and promoting the public interest, promoting access to justice, protecting and promoting the interests of consumers, promoting competition and promoting and maintaining the adherence to professional principles.

Since I became Dean, the Faculty has looked at various areas of practice which might be regarded as restrictive of competition. We have abolished the mixed doubles rule which prohibited an advocate appearing in tandem with a solicitor advocate. We have argued that there should be greater freedom of movement between the two branches of the profession and we are looking to see whether direct access to advocates can be increased.

Independence of the legal profession is critical if lawyers are going to be able to properly serve the public interest - as distinct from just a narrower consumer interest - and provide the access to justice and legal services that the Scottish public not only require but deserve.