QC title does not serve best interest of clients, says OFT

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, the Office of Fair Trading has said.

In its response to the Lord Chancellor's consultation on the future of the QC system, the OFT questioned whether it was right for the government to confer a title on some advocates that enhances their earning power and competitive position. The Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, has also called for the QC system to be ended.

The OFT said that, as it was common practice for the fees of QCs to increase overnight on appointment, the system "distorts competition between QCs and junior counsel and solicitors".

The OFT accepted 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. However, the OFT argued that the QC system appears not to meet these conditions.

The OFT claimed that the QC title was "too generic" to provide information that is really useful, and it 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.

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.

(gmcg)