The Thomson review into rights of audience before the Supreme Courts has been published to polite applause from the Law Society and a chorus of boos from the Faculty of Advocates.

The review, which concludes by  recommending a set standard qualifications, codes of conduct, monitoring and complaints procedures for pleaders before the courts, whilst maintaining separate business models, has been described as profoundly disappointing by the Faculty, who have disputed the merit of its conclusions and dismissed the "arrogance" of its author.

"The review completely failed to understand or appreciate the essential difference between solicitors and advocates. It failed, also, to understand the constitutional significance of an independent referral bar," said Faculty Dean Richard Keen QC. 

“We had hoped that Ben Thomson would have acknowledged that at least some of the points which we made then had merit. However, after an initial reading of his final report, it is apparent that he has chosen not to do so.

“We remain of the opinion that the Review represents a wasted opportunity to take a serious and informed look at the issue of rights of audience in the Supreme Courts. Ben Thomson has produced a curate’s egg of a report wherein the parts which are good are overwhelmed by those which are anything but.

“In our opinion the Review displays a lack of understanding of the issues and a certain arrogance on the part of its author. We said last month that there appeared to have been no attempt to commission meaningful research. Instead the Review appears to have proceeded on the basis of anecdote, perception and, sometimes, isolated and unsubstantiated comment from unidentified individuals. The Review in its final form seems merely to have repeated and, indeed, amplified these fundamental flaws”. 
 
Thomson said there was considerable support for trying to standardise qualifications and codes of conduct, but acknowledged there remained "a great deal of detail that needs to be worked out in order to implement the recommendations.

"We have not sought to be prescriptive in the areas that we consider are best left to those who know the details, but have instead tried to describe the overall outcome we believe will improve the current system," he said.

 The Law Society said tehy were pleased that the report recognises that all counsel appearing before the Supreme Courts should be on a level footing.

“We are pleased with the report’s recommendation for a single qualification, which is in line with our own submission to the Review. We have no major difficulty with the recommendation for one code of conduct for both solicitor advocates and advocates,” said Bruce Ritchie.

“Ultimately, clients should continue to have a choice of representation and to be able to rely on high standards being maintained by their representative.

The report can be read here.