*/
THE third round of appointments as Queen’s Counsel has been announced.
These appointments are made by an independent Selection Panel, which recommends who should receive this highly sought-after award. All those appointed have demonstrated excellence in advocacy in the higher courts. Baroness Butler-Sloss, Interim Chairman of the QC Selection Panel, said:
“I have the pleasure of announcing these 104 names. All applicants are assessed against a common competency framework and the same standard of excellence and it is encouraging to see that a wide variety of advocates are among those whose appointment is announced today. There are no quotas, and we treat all applications in the same way, but the range of appointments reflects the openness and fairness of the selection process. On this occasion, the Selection Panel made two significant improvements to the scheme, firstly by inviting applicants to describe the nature of their particular practice in their self-assessment and secondly by looking specifically
at both preparation for, and resolution of, disputes in relation to written and oral advocacy.
Although I applaud the achievement of all those whose appointment was announced today there are four categories of applicant which I would like to single out for special mention:
Employed Barristers: I know there have been concerns at the employed bar that the current selection arrangements are not for them. Our process is for any advocate whatever their employment status who can demonstrate excellence in written or oral advocacy in the higher courts. This year only two employed barristers applied, but I am delighted to say that they have both been appointed. I hope that this will encourage other suitable employed advocates to apply in the future.
Solicitor Advocates: This year only 4 solicitor advocates applied, but of these 3 (75%) have been appointed. Again I hope this will encourage solicitor advocates with the appropriate experience to apply in the future
Women: For the third year running the success rate for women applicants is significantly better than for men: 55% for women compared 40% for men. It is particularly disappointing therefore that fewer women seem to be applying for Silk, resulting in fewer appointments.
Ethnic minorities: As last year there are four appointments of applicants declaring an ethnic origin other than white.
I would hope that potential applicants from these groups will be heartened by these successes. I would encourage suitably qualified applicants from under represented groups to apply, and I hope that those who work with well qualified practitioners, whatever their background, to apply for Silk when they judge the time is right.
All our decisions have been based solely on the evidence before the Selection Panel on this occasion. The list is composed as it is because that is where the evidence led us.
I should like to congratulate the new QCs. I also have an important message for those applicants who were not successful on this occasion. The standard for appointment is very high. If you have not been appointed that does not mean that you are not a valued and perfectly competent advocate.”
She added:
“We are publishing a short report giving further information about this year's competition, with statistical information relating to successful and unsuccessful applicants. It will be available on our website. The Selection Panel would also like to express its warm appreciation of the contribution of the 1800 people who provided an assessment on one or more applicants, and without whom the process could not have worked effectively.
On a personal basis I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the three Selection Panel members who are now standing down after three competitions and whose contribution to establishing a fair, open and transparent selection system for Queen’s Counsel has been outstanding: Roy Amlot QC, Ruth Evans and Christopher Woolley.”
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP, announced today (under embargo) the names of 104 Queen’s Counsel from 247 applicants. This compares with 175 appointments (40%) from 443 applications in 2006-07 and 98 appointments (29%) from 333 applications in 2007-08.
The 104 (42% of all applicants) appointed this year included:
Although I applaud the achievement of all those whose appointment was announced today there are four categories of applicant which I would like to single out for special mention:
Employed Barristers: I know there have been concerns at the employed bar that the current selection arrangements are not for them. Our process is for any advocate whatever their employment status who can demonstrate excellence in written or oral advocacy in the higher courts. This year only two employed barristers applied, but I am delighted to say that they have both been appointed. I hope that this will encourage other suitable employed advocates to apply in the future.
Solicitor Advocates: This year only 4 solicitor advocates applied, but of these 3 (75%) have been appointed. Again I hope this will encourage solicitor advocates with the appropriate experience to apply in the future
Women: For the third year running the success rate for women applicants is significantly better than for men: 55% for women compared 40% for men. It is particularly disappointing therefore that fewer women seem to be applying for Silk, resulting in fewer appointments.
Ethnic minorities: As last year there are four appointments of applicants declaring an ethnic origin other than white.
I would hope that potential applicants from these groups will be heartened by these successes. I would encourage suitably qualified applicants from under represented groups to apply, and I hope that those who work with well qualified practitioners, whatever their background, to apply for Silk when they judge the time is right.
All our decisions have been based solely on the evidence before the Selection Panel on this occasion. The list is composed as it is because that is where the evidence led us.
I should like to congratulate the new QCs. I also have an important message for those applicants who were not successful on this occasion. The standard for appointment is very high. If you have not been appointed that does not mean that you are not a valued and perfectly competent advocate.”
She added:
“We are publishing a short report giving further information about this year's competition, with statistical information relating to successful and unsuccessful applicants. It will be available on our website. The Selection Panel would also like to express its warm appreciation of the contribution of the 1800 people who provided an assessment on one or more applicants, and without whom the process could not have worked effectively.
On a personal basis I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the three Selection Panel members who are now standing down after three competitions and whose contribution to establishing a fair, open and transparent selection system for Queen’s Counsel has been outstanding: Roy Amlot QC, Ruth Evans and Christopher Woolley.”
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP, announced today (under embargo) the names of 104 Queen’s Counsel from 247 applicants. This compares with 175 appointments (40%) from 443 applications in 2006-07 and 98 appointments (29%) from 333 applications in 2007-08.
The 104 (42% of all applicants) appointed this year included:
THE third round of appointments as Queen’s Counsel has been announced.
These appointments are made by an independent Selection Panel, which recommends who should receive this highly sought-after award. All those appointed have demonstrated excellence in advocacy in the higher courts. Baroness Butler-Sloss, Interim Chairman of the QC Selection Panel, said:
“I have the pleasure of announcing these 104 names. All applicants are assessed against a common competency framework and the same standard of excellence and it is encouraging to see that a wide variety of advocates are among those whose appointment is announced today. There are no quotas, and we treat all applications in the same way, but the range of appointments reflects the openness and fairness of the selection process. On this occasion, the Selection Panel made two significant improvements to the scheme, firstly by inviting applicants to describe the nature of their particular practice in their self-assessment and secondly by looking specifically
at both preparation for, and resolution of, disputes in relation to written and oral advocacy.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
AlphaBiolabs has been awarded the contract to provide drug, alcohol, and DNA testing services for Hull City Council, following a rigorous competitive tender process
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
At least not that way, says Richard Paige
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
