Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. Choosing the ground

Choosing the ground

12th March 2009 | civil litigation , criminal law , professional regulation

One suspects that the Faculty of Advocates has never fully come to terms with solicitors being granted extended rights of audience in the higher courts.

Today's strong attack by the Dean of Faculty on the Law Society of Scotland, for requesting a wider review of rights of audience than proposed by Lord Gill in the recent Woodside appeal, suggests that the Faculty has been waiting for the chance to hit out.

But is the charge of abdication of responsibility justified? It does not appear that the conduct of individuals is to come under further scrutiny, so we are not talking about disciplinary proceedings which would be entirely the province of the Society if a complaint were made.

As for a wider review of the rules, the matters highlighted by the Lord Justice Clerk clearly impact on clients' interests and on those of members of Faculty, in addition to solicitor advocates. And other bodies such as patent agents are now also in the process of acquiring rights of audience. Given the public's suspicion these days of professional bodies defining for themselves the scope of their members' activities, it is not difficult to see why the Society has asked the Government to commission an independent view.

Can this not be conducted efficiently in terms of time and money, for the results to feed into the discussions that will follow Lord Gill's general review of the civil courts?

 

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited