It often surprises people to learn that the Bar's Code of Conduct only came into existence in 1981. The first edition looks very restrictive, with passages specifying acceptable alternative occupations for barristers; detailed rules about where chambers could be established; and rules setting out what was permissible to put on a business card.

Seven editions later, the profession's rules have moved on considerably. The code has been constantly under review. The rules on advertising and media comment have changed beyond recognition, employed barristers are able to exercise equivalent rights of audience to their self-employed colleagues and direct access is now permitted.

So why should the Bar Standards Board (BSB) decide to institute a full review of the code, leading, presumably, to a ninth edition sometime in 2010 or 2011?

First, the code is one of the BSB's crucial regulatory tools. It directly affects who may practise, access to justice and the integrity of the services that barristers provide to clients and to the court. The BSB could not begin its work responsibly without an early look at all its provisions.

Secondly, it reflects the BSB's approach to regulation. We need to take a proper, evidence-based look at the rules in the public interest. The review is led jointly by the chair of the standards committee, Charles Hollander QC, and by one the vice chairs, Sarah Brown, a lay member of the board. This is typical of the BSB's view that the joint approach will most successfully identify the public interest.

Above all, the environment is changing. The Legal Services Bill will create the possibility of alternative business structures. Some barristers will wish to be involved in these structures, as employees, managers or even owners. The code should facilitate this. And if barristers are permitted to act in such organisations, where does that leave the existing prohibitions on barristers entering into partnership or other commercial arrangements with each other or with solicitors? There is an urgent need for a review of these rules that can also address a number of existing anomalies affecting employed barristers and those practising abroad.

Similarly, the rules limit the work that barristers can undertake, preventing them from conducting many tasks that solicitors can do. Are these important restrictions in the public interest to preserve the expertise of barristers? Or do they inhibit competition? If they are to be changed, what additional protections are needed?

Then there is the 'cab rank' rule. Does this serve to be an essential protection against access to justice and a guarantee of a barrister's independence? Or is it a disproportionate relic, more honoured in the breach? If it is to stay, how can it be applied meaningfully if some barristers are in partnership with solicitors who are under no such duty?

Are the rules governing client care sufficient? Compared with those for solicitors they look light. For example, there is no requirement to send a client care letter, except in direct access cases. And there is no requirement to inform clients about how to complain or what they can expect from their barrister. Is it realistic to expect the solicitor to do this for them?

We aim to complete the review of the entire code by 2010 and have issued an initial consultation paper. This simply asks for views about whether the issues we identify are the right ones and whether we have got the order (in which they should be looked at) correct. We are very keen to hear not just from barristers but also from solicitors and other users. All of them can tell us what is or is not inhibiting competition in the public interest.

It will be a major task to complete the work in time. At the end, however, we aim to have a code that will be demonstrably state-of-the-art and proportionate, which will have rules in the public interest, striking the balance between the interests of consumers and competition law and which protects the interests of justice.

Mark Stobbs is director of the Bar Standards Board.