Newsroom

QC system distorts competition without assuring quality

OFT reaffirms view in response to Lord Chancellor

PN 131/03     17 October 2003

The system by which the Government awards the title of QC to some advocates - almost exclusively barristers - distorts competition and does not serve the best interest of consumers, says the OFT in its response to the Lord Chancellor's consultation on the future of the QC system. 
Download our response The future of Queen's Counsel (pdf 122 kb).

The OFT questions whether it is right for the Government to confer a title on some advocates that enhances their earning power and competitive position; it is common practice for the fees of QCs to increase overnight on appointment. The system distorts competition between QCs and junior counsel and solicitors.

While the title is seen by the public as a strong indication that QCs offer a better service, the OFT questions whether this is the case. The OFT accepts that 'quality mark' schemes can benefit consumers who need information when, without distorting competition, it assists them to choose a high quality provider and where it raises the overall quality of the service by encouraging excellence.

The OFT argues that the QC system appears not to meet these conditions. Firstly, users generally acquire the services of advocates not directly but through solicitors, themselves legal professionals. The Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, has called for the QC system to be ended. Second, the QC title is too generic to provide information that is really useful: the system focuses on advocacy to the exclusion of other relevant skills that the users of legal services may need such as legal advice, case management, litigation, negotiation and client care; yet it does not tell purchasers anything at all about the key issue of a barrister's area(s) of specialisation. Third it may be questioned whether the system encourages the maintenance of excellence, as there is no continuing incentive or monitoring of quality once the title has been conferred. Indeed it could even encourage some QCs to rest on their laurels.

The OFT also questions how the direct involvement of the Government in awarding the QC title can be reconciled with the public interest objective of lawyers being manifestly independent of the Government.

John Vickers, OFT Chairman, said:

'For a mark of quality to serve the public interest it must meet a need that buyers have. And it must do so in a way that is objectively informative, which maintains incentives for quality service, and which does not distort competition. The QC system does not have these attributes. Government should not confer legitimacy upon - still less, run - such a system.'

Today's response follows the OFT's report 'Competition in professions' in March 2001 and a subsequent OFT progress report a year later.

NOTES

1. Download The future of Queen's Counsel - response from the Office of Fair Trading (pdf 122 kb).

2. The Department of Constitutional Affairs consultation Constitutional Reform: the future of Queen's Counsel was published July 2003.

3. The OFT report 'Competition in Professions' was published in March 2001, see OFT PN 10/01. The progress report statement on the report was published April 2002, see OFT PN 21/02.

Back to:2003