The review into rights of audience before the courts prompted by the Woodside case has published a preliminary report. Investment banker Ben Thomson who undertook the review has concluded that a common qualification apply to both advocates and solicitor-advocates, with common monitoring and complaints procedures, a conclusion which he says has widespread support.

"There is a great deal that we can be proud of in our legal profession in Scotland, and I believe that maintaining the two separate branches of the profession preserves our strong Scottish traditions and encourages healthy competition," he said.

"However it is apparent that there are different rules and conventions surrounding advocates and solicitor advocates which can cause issues. Our recommendations look to address these issues, by proposing a common qualification, common standards, and a common monitoring and complaints process for all pleaders. We have been pleased to see that there is widespread support for these proposals amongst those with whom we have discussed them."

John Scott, vice-president of the criminal committee of the Society of Solicitor Advocates said he was pleased the Thomson review has penetrated the "vanity and hot air" of the Faculty of Advocates' prior views.

"We had two meetings, and it was obvious by the second time they had a really good handle on the issues. They saw through the vanity and hot air of the previous faculty position," he said.

"They want a simpler set-up that makes sense to the public, with a single point of entry through an examination to earn rights of audience and a single complaints procedure. From the Society of Solicitor Advocates' point of view, we accept the reality that the SSA was never a regulatory body, rather than a training and advocacy organisation. We accept that Rule 3 doesn't need to be changed, but does have to be policed, and our members will need to be able to produce evidence that a client was made aware of his right to choose alternative counsel."

Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC was more circumspect, pointing out that "issues of principle" had not yet been considered.

"It is in the detail that the devil resides," he said.

"Without the detail, the issues of principle have not been addressed. For example, Mr Thomson acknowledges that most solicitor advocates specialise in one area of the bar, but he does not deal with the consequences. The essence of membership of the faculty and the training of applicants is that they become proficient across the whole range of Scots law. That is an essential, not a procedural difference.

"When Lord Gill is telling the judges to get on with their jobs and publish a list of any judgments more than three months late, Mr Thomson is piling new work on. If they are to be part of a review of performance that might lead to right of audience – and with it a livelihood – that would have to be more than a cursory look."

The final report is due in March. In the interim, Thomson has called for feedback by February 19 to thomsonreview@scotland.gsi.gov.uk