header-logo header-logo

End of the silk route

27 February 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Eighty-four lawyers celebrate successful QC applications

Glasses were raised across chambers as the latest silk list was revealed this week. Eighty-four candidates were successful—nearly half of all who applied.

They include 14 women, out of 26 female applicants. In the last round, 2011–12, 23 women succeeded out of 40 female candidates. On both occasions, women have been proportionately more successful than men.

Only two solicitor-advocates applied, of which one was successful. None were appointed in the last round and, since 2008, only eight solicitor-advocates have been appointed.

Four employed advocates applied, but not one was appointed. Last time, three employed advocates applied and one succeeded.

The baby of the new silks is a mere 36 years old, while the most senior is 61. Five of the new QCs were older than 50 when they applied, compared with only three in the last round.

Three of the new intake declared an ethnic origin other than white (as did 21 applicants). In the previous round, six non-white QCs were appointed.

One applicant declared a disability, but was not appointed. Last time, seven advocates with disabilities applied and four were appointed.

Helen Pitcher, chair of the QC panel, says: “The selection process is an exacting one.

“We collect confidential assessments from judges, fellow advocates and professional clients, all of whom will have seen the applicant at work. Applicants are also interviewed by two members of the panel. The whole panel then discusses the evidence on each applicant. 

“We have been impressed by the extremely high quality of the applicants. The panel has had the difficult task of identifying the truly excellent advocates. And I am confident that those appointed today truly deserve to be the Queen’s Counsel.

“Although unsuccessful applicants will naturally be disappointed, I must stress that this does not mean that they are not highly valued and effective practitioners. The standard for appointment is extremely high.”

Lord Carlile and Felicity Huston will both stand down from the selection panel at the end of this competition.

Issue: 7550 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll