New Delhi: Calling the independence of the legal profession as important as the independence of the judiciary, Supreme Court Tuesday said the former must remain self-regulated. External agencies or institutions could not record adverse findings and opinions about the professional standing of advocates, the court said, as this was the exclusive domain of the Bar Council. It held that banks could not blacklist an advocate by putting his name on a ‘caution list’.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, however, underscored the need for lawyers to upgrade their skill in the continuously evolving legal profession and suggested setting up of a National Legal Academy for advocates on the lines of National Judicial Academy, which was established for judges. It also said disciplinary action taken by Bar Council of India must strengthen people’s trust in the system.“The right and privilege of self-regulation of the Bar, through peer review, must withstand scrutiny on the touchstones of transparency, accountability, and institutional effectiveness. Public confidence in the legal profession, which is indispensable to the administration of justice, can be sustained only when disciplinary mechanisms inspire trust and credibility,” the apex court said.“We have, therefore, considered it appropriate to direct Bar Council of India to undertake a performance audit of the efficacy and credibility of its disciplinary powers and to adopt such corrective and remedial measures as may be found necessary,” the bench added.SC had appointed senior advocate Maninder Singh as amicus curiae. The bench accepted Singh’s submission, which said any allegation of professional misconduct against an advocate was exclusively reserved for the statutory jurisdiction of the Bar Council concerned.Blocking the involvement of outsiders in disciplining lawyers accused of professional misconduct, SC said allowed the plea of an advocate who challenged Canara Bank’s decision to put his name on a caution list for allegedly giving a wrong opinion. It said the bank should have approached BCI if there was professional negligence on the part of the lawyer.