header-logo header-logo

QC Selection Biased

22 January 2009
Issue: 7353 / Categories: Legal News , Practice areas , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Solicitors claim the silk selection procedure is biased towards barristers and too costly and time consuming to complete. 

Solicitors claim the silk selection procedure is biased towards barristers and too costly and time consuming to complete. Since 2005, QCs have been appointed by a selection panel in an open competition. Earlier this month, a Law Society survey among 170 solicitors found the majority thought the current system favoured barristers, and had concerns about the cost and length of time required. Of 20 solicitors who considered applying in the last three years, only three had actually applied. The main reasons given were cost and a belief that they would be unlikely to succeed. It costs £2,500 to apply for Silk, and a further £3,500 on appointment. The Bar Council and Law Society are considering a review by Sir Duncan Nichol into the appointment system, which suggests what forms of excellence it should recognise as well as what criteria should be used to assess applicants. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll