8. The rules of conduct and etiquette of the profession should be properly codified by a single body having a substantial lay representation.
9. A law degree should not be a necessary condition for admission
to the legal profession.
10. Barristers should be liable for negligent advocacy, and professional negligence insurance should be compulsory for all lawyers in private practice.
11. Transfer between the two branches of the profession should
be made as easy as possible.
12. In all cases it should be the responsibility of heads of chambers and senior partners in solicitors' firms to ensure that accused persons are not represented by counsel who have been inadequately briefed and that in criminal cases counsel should be asked to advise on evidence and to see his client in conference. 13. Where counsel considers there are valid grounds of appeal, a Legal Aid Order should cover all reasonable steps necessary to pursue an application for leave to the Full Court, and there should be some form of post-appeal legal aid certificate, issued by a Legal Aid Area Committee, for the purpose of obtaining or verifying new evidence and drafting a petition to the Home Secretary.
The composition of the various contributing groups was as follows. Steering Committee: Paul Sieghart (Chairman); Michael Bryceson; Philip English; Gerald Godfrey; Philip Kimber. Working Party on Legal Services: Philip English (Chairman); Stuart Elgrod; David Graham; John Samuels. Working Party on Organisation of the Profession: Gerald Godfrey (Chairman); Michael Ellman; Paul Haverman; Philip Lewis; Laurence Shurman. Working Party on Work and Renumeration of the Profession: Michael Bryceson (Chairman); Roy Goode; William Goodhart; Philip Kimber. Working Party on Criminal Justice: Lewis Hawser (Chairman); Stuart Elgrod; Jeffrey Gordon; Allan Levy; Michael Sherrard; and Charles Wegg-Prosser.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
In last year's Annual Report we expressed regret that, following the demise of the Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, no serious attempt had been made to rescue any of its more valuable proposals or to work out any acceptable proposals which would reduce the risks of convicting the innocent and acquitting the guilty which are inherent in our system. We deplored the confrontation between the police and the legal profession, and stressed the urgent need for a constructive dialogue.
Despite the opportunities offered by the Criminal Law Bill now before Parliament, everything which we said then remains true today. We had ourselves planned and hoped to sponsor an inquiry in depth into the merits and inadequacies of the accusatorial system, but were unable to mobilize the necessary manpower and financial resources. We are glad to see that Prof. Michael Zander, in an article in last month's Criminal
11