QC body: this year's silk round to miss this year
The relaunched QC body is unlikely to finalise its new appointment round this year in a development that will raise questions about the future of the silks system.
October 17, 2007 at 11:02 PM
2 minute read
The relaunched QC body is unlikely to finalise its new appointment round this year in a development that will raise questions about the future of the silks system.
The body responsible for assessing and handing out the rank said this week that the second round of QC awards was unlikely to be announced before January – 18 months after the first batch of silks were unveiled under the revamped kitemark.
The QC selection panel, which was set up in 2005 as an independent body to replace the Government in handing out the award, said delays to the current round were partly due to changes to the entry criteria to streamline the application process.
QC appointment secretariat David Watts said: "The hope was that it could be done within 12 months but in practice it became clear this was not achievable."
It has also become uncertain whether the award will return to its traditional annual cycle, as Watts told Legal Week it is possible that the panel will make further changes to the system. Areas likely to be looked at by the nine-member body, which is chaired by Sir Duncan Nichol, are costs and the reference process.
Signs that the relaunched silk award is struggling to maintain its predecessor's place as an established part of the legal calendar have raised questions over the model's future. The panel had already decided to raise application costs substantially after a shortfall in applications in its first year of operation.
Herbert Smith advocacy head Murray Rosen QC (pictured) said: "We have had years of disruption. The system clearly had to be changed but after five years or so there are a lot of individuals whose careers have been put on hold to some extent. The right balance needs to be struck."
Watts responded: "Both panel and applicants will want a new QC process as soon as possible, but I am sure they will understand that everyone is working to make the process as good as it can be."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readECJ Ruling Upholds German Ban on Pure Private Equity Investment in Law Firms
4 minute readCanadian Appeal Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250