*/
In this series, ‘KC appointments – our approach to the selection process’, our aim is clarity for applicants and assessors. Some important points provide the context for our work. The KC award is for consistent excellence in advocacy in the law of England and Wales. The competency framework was created by the professional bodies, successive Lords Chancellors and senior judges. The diverse panel of legal and lay members applies the framework rigorously and consistently. We rely heavily on evidence from assessors. There are no quotas for appointment. In summary, as one of our founding documents reads, the process, combined with the competency framework, ‘serves the public interest by offering a fair and transparent means of identifying excellence in advocacy in the higher courts’.
The award of King’s Counsel is for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts. Silk applicants provide evidence across four competencies; competency B, written and oral advocacy, is one of the legal competencies – along with A, understanding and using the law – upon which applicants are assessed.
Competency B relates to developing or advancing a client’s or employer’s case to secure the best outcome in the dispute. Evidence is typically and largely drawn from a contested court setting, although it could also be through arbitration, court determination, settlement agreements or, occasionally, through mediation.
This competency covers both written and oral advocacy. Separate evidence is sought from applicants and their assessors on these competencies. This allows for some consideration of the type of practice that applicants have, and whether written or oral advocacy forms a particularly substantial part of their specialism. The grading for this competency overall is not a mathematical formula based on an average or aggregate of the scores in competency B1 (written advocacy) and competency B2 (oral advocacy). Rather, it is a judgement made by the panel based on a number of factors including, in particular, assessor comments and type of practice. The overall grading will reflect the assessor and panel views of the applicant’s advocacy skills, bearing in mind the relative importance of written and oral advocacy in the applicant’s particular area of practice (which may provide greater or lesser opportunities to demonstrate competency B1 or, alternatively, B2 skills).
The competency framework makes clear that, for written and oral advocacy, we are seeking evidence of the applicant’s ability to gain a rapid, incisive overview of complex material. Additionally, we are seeking evidence that the applicant can quickly identify the best course of action, communicate a case persuasively, assimilate and respond appropriately to the implications of any new evidence – be that while on their feet in response to a question from the bench or, by way of further example, in drafting arguments overnight in response to changes in the direction of a case.
In written advocacy we look for evidence of consistent excellence in written submissions – skeletons, opening and closing arguments and other forms of written argument and submissions. Assessors must be able to provide evidence to the panel as to the applicant’s excellence in developing strategy according to the needs of the case, reviewing and presenting information at pace – including identifying key points and, for example, distilling vast quantities of factual and evidential data into what is relevant and useful to the tribunal. They must also be able to offer evidence to support excellence in writing succinctly and persuasively, developing new and creative ways of applying the law, working with emerging or novel law, researching the law of other areas or other jurisdictions or perhaps translating complex legal language or technical fact into something accessible for the judge or client so as to be able persuasively to analyse a difficult point of law which is being contested in the higher courts.
For oral advocacy, the panel would like evidence of excellence in a contested setting. Assessors must be able to offer evidence of the applicant’s ability to produce succinct and well-constructed arguments – taking only necessary points and being able to change tack in response to new information or challenge. Applicants must be able to demonstrate excellent interactions with the bench, listening and taking cues with the ability to adapt their style according to audience, settings and the reactions of others. When there are tricky case management issues or cross-examinations have taken an unexpected turn, has the applicant’s understanding of their case, their grasp of the factual and legal issues, combined with their skill in oral advocacy, helped to improve outcomes? Assessors must offer the panel evidence of excellence in contested advocacy and in cross-examination and examination-in-chief in particular, unless the applicant’s area of practice does not involve examination of witnesses.
It is important to note at this point that the competency framework requires that all applicants are able to demonstrate evidence of consistent excellence in oral advocacy. If applicants cannot offer evidence of any oral advocacy at all, they will not be able to complete the advocacy competency.
However, as described above, the panel’s judgement on oral advocacy takes into account the nature of your practice. For example, if you work in a practice area where oral advocacy is rare, or you have a disability or caring responsibilities that restrict your time in court, the panel will give some consideration to this in the way in which they grade Competency B overall. This is why it is imperative that you use the description of practice and/ or Section G of the application form to give the panel a clear view of your practice and any limitations in your access to opportunities to perform oral advocacy. It is important, however, to note that even if the body of evidence on oral advocacy is limited by personal or professional circumstance, your assessors must nonetheless be able to offer some evidence of strong and consistent excellence in oral advocacy.
If applicants have a desk-based practice, it may be worth considering how you might fill any gaps in relation to oral advocacy. Starting to plan for your application three to four years out from when you intend to apply can help by allowing you time to approach your clerks, partners, line managers or other silks for the kind of work that will help to build the evidence you need. Alternatively, Advocate and similar organisations are often able to help in providing this exposure. The panel sees excellent examples every year of applicants taking on pro bono work to fill gaps in experience. Further details can be found on Advocate’s website (short link: tinyurl.com/yc5x2rnb).
As ever, the most important element in the KC process is the evidence from assessors who have recent professional experience of seeing the applicant at work. For the panel, the assessors are the key to the grading exercise which we undertake, and the evidence given by assessors is by a very considerable distance the most important element of our work. The KC selection frameworks, in turn, rely heavily on assessors giving the panel their honest, evidence-based assessments of the applicant across all the competencies. The assessors’ role is not to act as cheerleader to the applicant but rather to serve the profession and the public by helping us ensure the KC award remains a beacon of excellence in advocacy. The panel and secretariat are immensely grateful to assessors for the trouble that they take each year in providing the evidence on which we, the applicants and, ultimately, the public rely.
The full assessor guidance, with example assessments covering each competency, and a short video, is on the KCA website, along with further guidance for applicants: 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.
Matthew Chapman KC was called to the Bar in 1994 and took silk in 2017. He is a barrister in full-time practice at Deka Chambers in London. Matthew is a personal injury practitioner with particular interests in cross-border disputes/travel matters and employers’ liability actions. He was formerly a fee-paid Employment Judge and now sits as a Recorder (Crime) on the South-Eastern Circuit. In 2025 he was appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge (King’s Bench Division). He has, for many years, been a co-author of Munkman on Employers’ Liability (LexisNexis) and Saggerson on Travel Law and Litigation (Wildy & Sons).
In this series, ‘KC appointments – our approach to the selection process’, our aim is clarity for applicants and assessors. Some important points provide the context for our work. The KC award is for consistent excellence in advocacy in the law of England and Wales. The competency framework was created by the professional bodies, successive Lords Chancellors and senior judges. The diverse panel of legal and lay members applies the framework rigorously and consistently. We rely heavily on evidence from assessors. There are no quotas for appointment. In summary, as one of our founding documents reads, the process, combined with the competency framework, ‘serves the public interest by offering a fair and transparent means of identifying excellence in advocacy in the higher courts’.
The award of King’s Counsel is for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts. Silk applicants provide evidence across four competencies; competency B, written and oral advocacy, is one of the legal competencies – along with A, understanding and using the law – upon which applicants are assessed.
Competency B relates to developing or advancing a client’s or employer’s case to secure the best outcome in the dispute. Evidence is typically and largely drawn from a contested court setting, although it could also be through arbitration, court determination, settlement agreements or, occasionally, through mediation.
This competency covers both written and oral advocacy. Separate evidence is sought from applicants and their assessors on these competencies. This allows for some consideration of the type of practice that applicants have, and whether written or oral advocacy forms a particularly substantial part of their specialism. The grading for this competency overall is not a mathematical formula based on an average or aggregate of the scores in competency B1 (written advocacy) and competency B2 (oral advocacy). Rather, it is a judgement made by the panel based on a number of factors including, in particular, assessor comments and type of practice. The overall grading will reflect the assessor and panel views of the applicant’s advocacy skills, bearing in mind the relative importance of written and oral advocacy in the applicant’s particular area of practice (which may provide greater or lesser opportunities to demonstrate competency B1 or, alternatively, B2 skills).
The competency framework makes clear that, for written and oral advocacy, we are seeking evidence of the applicant’s ability to gain a rapid, incisive overview of complex material. Additionally, we are seeking evidence that the applicant can quickly identify the best course of action, communicate a case persuasively, assimilate and respond appropriately to the implications of any new evidence – be that while on their feet in response to a question from the bench or, by way of further example, in drafting arguments overnight in response to changes in the direction of a case.
In written advocacy we look for evidence of consistent excellence in written submissions – skeletons, opening and closing arguments and other forms of written argument and submissions. Assessors must be able to provide evidence to the panel as to the applicant’s excellence in developing strategy according to the needs of the case, reviewing and presenting information at pace – including identifying key points and, for example, distilling vast quantities of factual and evidential data into what is relevant and useful to the tribunal. They must also be able to offer evidence to support excellence in writing succinctly and persuasively, developing new and creative ways of applying the law, working with emerging or novel law, researching the law of other areas or other jurisdictions or perhaps translating complex legal language or technical fact into something accessible for the judge or client so as to be able persuasively to analyse a difficult point of law which is being contested in the higher courts.
For oral advocacy, the panel would like evidence of excellence in a contested setting. Assessors must be able to offer evidence of the applicant’s ability to produce succinct and well-constructed arguments – taking only necessary points and being able to change tack in response to new information or challenge. Applicants must be able to demonstrate excellent interactions with the bench, listening and taking cues with the ability to adapt their style according to audience, settings and the reactions of others. When there are tricky case management issues or cross-examinations have taken an unexpected turn, has the applicant’s understanding of their case, their grasp of the factual and legal issues, combined with their skill in oral advocacy, helped to improve outcomes? Assessors must offer the panel evidence of excellence in contested advocacy and in cross-examination and examination-in-chief in particular, unless the applicant’s area of practice does not involve examination of witnesses.
It is important to note at this point that the competency framework requires that all applicants are able to demonstrate evidence of consistent excellence in oral advocacy. If applicants cannot offer evidence of any oral advocacy at all, they will not be able to complete the advocacy competency.
However, as described above, the panel’s judgement on oral advocacy takes into account the nature of your practice. For example, if you work in a practice area where oral advocacy is rare, or you have a disability or caring responsibilities that restrict your time in court, the panel will give some consideration to this in the way in which they grade Competency B overall. This is why it is imperative that you use the description of practice and/ or Section G of the application form to give the panel a clear view of your practice and any limitations in your access to opportunities to perform oral advocacy. It is important, however, to note that even if the body of evidence on oral advocacy is limited by personal or professional circumstance, your assessors must nonetheless be able to offer some evidence of strong and consistent excellence in oral advocacy.
If applicants have a desk-based practice, it may be worth considering how you might fill any gaps in relation to oral advocacy. Starting to plan for your application three to four years out from when you intend to apply can help by allowing you time to approach your clerks, partners, line managers or other silks for the kind of work that will help to build the evidence you need. Alternatively, Advocate and similar organisations are often able to help in providing this exposure. The panel sees excellent examples every year of applicants taking on pro bono work to fill gaps in experience. Further details can be found on Advocate’s website (short link: tinyurl.com/yc5x2rnb).
As ever, the most important element in the KC process is the evidence from assessors who have recent professional experience of seeing the applicant at work. For the panel, the assessors are the key to the grading exercise which we undertake, and the evidence given by assessors is by a very considerable distance the most important element of our work. The KC selection frameworks, in turn, rely heavily on assessors giving the panel their honest, evidence-based assessments of the applicant across all the competencies. The assessors’ role is not to act as cheerleader to the applicant but rather to serve the profession and the public by helping us ensure the KC award remains a beacon of excellence in advocacy. The panel and secretariat are immensely grateful to assessors for the trouble that they take each year in providing the evidence on which we, the applicants and, ultimately, the public rely.
The full assessor guidance, with example assessments covering each competency, and a short video, is on the KCA website, along with further guidance for applicants: 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 reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
It’s been five years since the groundbreaking QC competition in which six Black women barristers, including the 2025 Chair of the Bar, took silk. Yet today, the number of Black KCs remains ‘critically low’. Desirée Artesi talks to Baroness Scotland KC, Allison Munroe KC and Melanie Simpson KC about the critical success factors, barriers and ideas for embedding change
