Quality Mark (Legal Services Commission)

This Quality Policy and the controls defined in Chambers Quality Manual have been developed to ensure that Chambers fulfils the following objectives in its aim to provide the highest levels of service to its clients:
  • To provide a professional, approachable and competitive service in our specialist areas of common law – Employment, Personal Injury, Clinical Law, Environmental and Product Liability/Health & Safety - ensuring prompt and practical legal advice and representation as a priority;
  • To provide an effective clerking service with whom our professional clients can deal on terms of familiarity and trust;
  • To utilise information technology to its full potential in order to maximise efficiency and client care;
  • To resolve client concerns as speedily as possible and to develop services in response to feedback received;
  • To recruit capable, helpful and courteous staff and invest in their development and training;
  • To ensure that our premises and facilities are safe, accessible and comfortable for all personnel and visitors;
  • To provide an effective training programme for pupils;
  • To comply with and promote the Bar Council’s Code for Equality and Non-Discrimination;
  • To provide strategic direction and to develop Chambers to its full potential;
  • To ensure that responsibility, authority and the decision making structure within Chambers are clear.

We are committed to a policy of assuring the quality of our service to all clients. In the accomplishment of this aim, our objective is to provide an efficient and professional service, carried out to controlled practices and to standards that are consistently maintained. This is ensured through the implementation and maintenance of clear policies and procedures that are adhered to by all members and staff. We have set service standards in respect of those aspects impacting directly upon our clients and measure our compliance at regular intervals to ensure such standards are maintained or improved upon.

Old Square Chambers work to and will continue to meet with the requirements of the Legal Services Commission’s Quality Mark for the Bar (thereby achieving the ‘Quality Mark’ award). Although everyone within Chambers contributes towards the implementation, improvement and success of our Quality Management System, our Committee of Management has responsibility for ensuring that standards are adhered to by the members and staff.

We believe sustained quality and excellence is achieved only by continuous improvement and shall strive to improve the service to our clients by means of structured reviews of our Quality Management System. Our Committee of Management meetings provide a regular forum for the monitoring of standards and achievements, reviewing feedback and problems encountered and reviewing the effectiveness of corrective action taken. The regular review of our quality management system at the strategic level and canvassing of client views ensures that our service and policies are always focused on client needs.

We attach great importance to the contribution which all barristers and employees make to the quality of service provided and to the continuous improvement philosophy. Our committee and meeting structure encourages a policy of open communication and involvement to generate an innovative environment and to capitalise on useful ideas.

This policy has been issued to all barristers, pupils and staff and is available to clients on request.

Approved at a Chambers Meeting
On 21 July 2003

Metropolitan Police race discrimination case begins
Old Square team win case regarding classification under MHPS type procedures
Lu v. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Otis Ferry criticised by a judge for his joint attack on two hunt monitors
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
  News Archive »
Michelle Fynes v. St George's Hospital NHS Trust
Lu v. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
The Queen on the Application of UNISON v. The Lord Chancellor and The Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener)
Deborah Harrod & others v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others
Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust
  Cases Archive »
Melanie Tether examines the TUPE Regulations
Costs Budgeting: Recent Developments
How not to run a professional disciplinary case
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - An Overview of the Key Provisions & ET Fees
Strike Out (3) - Mark Whitcombe examines the employment tribunal's approach to striking out
  Articles Archive »
  Quality Mark | DDA Compliance | Links | Equal Opportunities | Sitemap | Employment & Discrimination | Professional Discipline | Personal Injury | Clinical Negligence | Product Liability
Environment | Health & Safety | Public Inquiry | ADR/Mediation | Copyright© Old Square Chambers | Privacy Policy | Data Diversity Survey | Website developed & maintained by Sygnia