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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll