header-logo header-logo

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

QC Selection Biased

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll