*/
Competency A, Understanding and Using the Law, is one of the ‘legal’ competencies (the other being Competency B, Written and Oral Advocacy).
For Competency A, the Selection Panel needs evidence of consistent excellence in the law. Assessors give us this in a variety of ways, any or all of which support their view that the applicant’s understanding and application of the law is above what they would consider the day job. Crucially, the assessors’ evidence must give the panel confidence that the depth of understanding of the legal principles exceeds what would be expected of a competent senior junior.
The panel is seeking evidence from assessors on whether the law in the case was complex or difficult. Assessors will often include comments which draw attention to the applicant’s knowledge of relatively new or emerging law. Established law can also form a powerful part of the evidence, particularly a rarely used legal principle or one used creatively to win an argument.
The competency framework is clear that applicants should have expert, up-to-date legal knowledge and use it accurately, relevantly and effectively. Expertise demonstrated by writing for textbooks or legal articles, while interesting, does not entirely satisfy the requirements of this competency. Assessors do need to confirm to the panel that applicants apply the law to the case in question.
It can be more straightforward to demonstrate excellence in this competency if the case has been argued in an appellate court, particularly if the applicant has also appeared. The panel understands that often applicants don’t appear and confirmation from leaders (practitioner assessors) that the applicant’s argument was the route to success or to a compliment from the Bench also counts as good evidence.
We look for the ability of applicants to become familiar with new areas of law fast and reliably. Examples could be developing a case outside the applicant’s specialism, or from another jurisdiction. Assessors often give us evidence which demonstrates how the applicant identified key authorities and had to move at speed or think on their feet to develop and communicate their arguments. We regularly see praise for wide-ranging legal knowledge at an applicant’s fingertips, novel or innovative use of the law, impressing the tribunal with their mastery of unfamiliar law, or careful interpretation and application of legal principles.
The standard required to achieve the threshold for interview, or appointment, is for obvious reasons extremely high. The applicants who meet the threshold can typically list more than one or two significant cases – i.e. they draw from a body of work of consistent excellence in understanding and applying the law in cases which are legally (rather than solely factually) complex, of financial value or sensitivity.
Assessors, if you have seen the applicant use other areas of law or research a new and developing area and deploy it to good effect, please tell us. You might have seen the applicant concede points so that compelling arguments had a brighter spotlight. Perhaps the applicant demonstrated deep understanding of the most recent precedent in their specialism or skilfully used case law outside it. After late disclosure, did the applicant supply good advice, under pressure, as new evidence emerged? These are some of the examples which really help the panel get to the nub of it all: is the applicant poised to shine as a beacon of excellence, leading the profession?
The panel values your candid, unflinching assessments. We know it can be difficult to flag a weakness when it might mean that the application does not succeed. Let us repeat: your role is not to help the applicant at the cost of forthrightness but to serve the profession. The KC award is deservedly held in the highest esteem worldwide. The panel relies heavily on your rigorous, evidenced, unbiased assessments to help us ensure it remains the kitemark for excellence in advocacy in the law of England and Wales.
The full assessor guidance, with example assessments covering each competency, is on the KCA website: kcappointments.org.
We hope this article has been helpful. The KCA Secretariat is always happy to help prospective applicants or assessors on any aspect of the silk process. Please do email: enquiries@kcappointments.org.
Monisha Shah is the Chair of the King's Counsel Selection Panel. She is also Chair of Wikimedia UK, a board member for the Office of Students and content board member for Ofcom. She is a Trustee of the Art Fund and of Caterham School. She was formerly a lay member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Dame Anne Rafferty practised in criminal law, took silk in 1990 and retired from the Court of Appeal in 2020. She has been a member of the King's Counsel Selection Panel for four years.
Competency A, Understanding and Using the Law, is one of the ‘legal’ competencies (the other being Competency B, Written and Oral Advocacy).
For Competency A, the Selection Panel needs evidence of consistent excellence in the law. Assessors give us this in a variety of ways, any or all of which support their view that the applicant’s understanding and application of the law is above what they would consider the day job. Crucially, the assessors’ evidence must give the panel confidence that the depth of understanding of the legal principles exceeds what would be expected of a competent senior junior.
The panel is seeking evidence from assessors on whether the law in the case was complex or difficult. Assessors will often include comments which draw attention to the applicant’s knowledge of relatively new or emerging law. Established law can also form a powerful part of the evidence, particularly a rarely used legal principle or one used creatively to win an argument.
The competency framework is clear that applicants should have expert, up-to-date legal knowledge and use it accurately, relevantly and effectively. Expertise demonstrated by writing for textbooks or legal articles, while interesting, does not entirely satisfy the requirements of this competency. Assessors do need to confirm to the panel that applicants apply the law to the case in question.
It can be more straightforward to demonstrate excellence in this competency if the case has been argued in an appellate court, particularly if the applicant has also appeared. The panel understands that often applicants don’t appear and confirmation from leaders (practitioner assessors) that the applicant’s argument was the route to success or to a compliment from the Bench also counts as good evidence.
We look for the ability of applicants to become familiar with new areas of law fast and reliably. Examples could be developing a case outside the applicant’s specialism, or from another jurisdiction. Assessors often give us evidence which demonstrates how the applicant identified key authorities and had to move at speed or think on their feet to develop and communicate their arguments. We regularly see praise for wide-ranging legal knowledge at an applicant’s fingertips, novel or innovative use of the law, impressing the tribunal with their mastery of unfamiliar law, or careful interpretation and application of legal principles.
The standard required to achieve the threshold for interview, or appointment, is for obvious reasons extremely high. The applicants who meet the threshold can typically list more than one or two significant cases – i.e. they draw from a body of work of consistent excellence in understanding and applying the law in cases which are legally (rather than solely factually) complex, of financial value or sensitivity.
Assessors, if you have seen the applicant use other areas of law or research a new and developing area and deploy it to good effect, please tell us. You might have seen the applicant concede points so that compelling arguments had a brighter spotlight. Perhaps the applicant demonstrated deep understanding of the most recent precedent in their specialism or skilfully used case law outside it. After late disclosure, did the applicant supply good advice, under pressure, as new evidence emerged? These are some of the examples which really help the panel get to the nub of it all: is the applicant poised to shine as a beacon of excellence, leading the profession?
The panel values your candid, unflinching assessments. We know it can be difficult to flag a weakness when it might mean that the application does not succeed. Let us repeat: your role is not to help the applicant at the cost of forthrightness but to serve the profession. The KC award is deservedly held in the highest esteem worldwide. The panel relies heavily on your rigorous, evidenced, unbiased assessments to help us ensure it remains the kitemark for excellence in advocacy in the law of England and Wales.
The full assessor guidance, with example assessments covering each competency, is on the KCA website: kcappointments.org.
We hope this article has been helpful. The KCA Secretariat is always happy to help prospective applicants or assessors on any aspect of the silk process. Please do email: enquiries@kcappointments.org.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
