Others and I would suggest, most others, ought to be deeply worried. The Scottish government seems to think it knows better than those just mentioned about the legal profession and the public interest. It has in mind a new regulatory body which will decide who gets into the profession and for the discipline of those who get in. Yes, this is the idea. Most readers will know that at present, entry and discipline are matters for the two professional bodies, but in relation to discipline, lay members, not chosen by these bodies have an important part to play.

Let us assume that this body sees the light of day, what then?

1. It will need a chairperson, members, and staff, some or all of whom will be permanent and thus, paid, no doubt well.
2. The body will require premises, furniture etc. Rule out a couple of portacabins in a deprived area.
3. The members will be selected to ensure that they come from a broad spectrum of society, but more importantly, they will be truly independent, in the sense that they will be picked by the Scottish government who will ensure that members are sympathetic to them.
4. All candidates for entry will surely need to be interviewed. Passes in the relevant exams will not be enough – they cannot guarantee that the “right” people become lawyers. If any candidate mentions “appointment on merit,” beware!
5. Many employers ask for references. They are a guide, but can be an imperfect one. Candidates are unlikely to choose a referee who will not be favourably disposed. Referees may underplay the fact that the candidate does not relate well to others, is lazy and frequently absent. For the good of customers, students or whoever, other staff may cover up the candidate’s problems or stand in during an absence and the head of department may be ignorant of this.
6. The “rigorous” interviewing process will consist of what exactly? 
7. Phoning around is useful, but not acceptable in some quarters: that is why I no longer do it!
8. We will be told that the regulatory body is far superior to what happens at present and so no lawyer who gets through the “rigorous” tests will ever “offend,” whether the offence is taking money out of a clients’ account for non-authorised purposes, or having the temerity to suggest that the X (Scotland) Act is unnecessary/badly drafted. As they say, “Aye, that’ll be right!”
9. Logic would suggest that the new regulatory body would oversee the post-qualifying education of lawyers and judges. At present these courses are organised by people who know what they are talking about.
10. What about the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland? The proposed regulatory body would need to regulate it as well. As an aside, have a look at Lord Hope’s Diary (House of Lords entry 10 September 2004)) where he narrates that a senior civil servant (whom he names) tried to persuade a reluctant Sheriff Principal MacPhail to apply to be a judge. That is called “independence”. An isolated episode. You may think that. I could not possibly comment.
11. Every member of the legal profession is at present answerable to the professional body and ultimately to Scotland’s senior judge, who is independent and long may it continue. My career may not have been particularly distinguished, but I would have told any regulatory body the truth, (assuming I even got interviewed, as I went to a fee-paying school) and that would have ensured that whatever talents I had would have to find their expression elsewhere, possibly as a cleaner in the august premises of the new regulatory body. “I polished up the handle of the big front door”.

For the avoidance of doubt, as some lawyers say, the foregoing should not be read as a criticism, but merely as helpful observations framed in as mild a manner as I can manage. Would I not just go down a bundle at interview? 

Douglas J. Cusine is a retired sheriff and a respected author of articles and books on legal and medico-legal topics.