Silk hopes on hold as relaunched award set to miss 2007 QC round
The relaunched QC selection body is unlikely to announce the appointments of any new silks this year, prompting some barristers to question the future - and the credibility - of the recently revamped system. The selection panel, which is responsible for assessing and assigning QC status, said last month that the second round of awards was unlikely to be announced before January - 18 months after the first batch was unveiled under the revamped quality mark.
October 31, 2007 at 11:32 PM
7 minute read
The relaunched QC application process suffers more delays; pupillage numbers reach a stable level; and 5 Raymond Buildings' Desmond Browne QC becomes Bar Council chairman-elect. Claire Ruckin rounds up the latest news from the Bar
The relaunched QC selection body is unlikely to announce the appointments of any new silks this year, prompting some barristers to question the future – and the credibility – of the recently revamped system.
The selection panel, which is responsible for assessing and assigning QC status, said last month that the second round of awards was unlikely to be announced before January – 18 months after the first batch was unveiled under the revamped quality mark.
QC appointment secretariat David Watts said: "The hope was that it could be done within 12 months, but that was in theory. Once in practice it became clear that this was not achievable."
The panel, which is chaired by Sir Duncan Nichol and made up of a mixture of lay members and legal professionals including Bar Standards Board chief Ruth Evans, was set up in 2005 as an independent body.
It took over from the Government in handing out the QC title after a three-year hiatus following the award's suspension in 2003.
However, the system experienced teething problems during its first year – the panel admitted delays to the current round were due partly to changes to the entry criteria designed to streamline the process.
The changes included reducing the number of application categories from seven to five and changing the reference process. The system also came in for a battering after fees were increased by 39% from £1,800 in 2006 to £2,500 for the latest round of appointments.
It has also become uncertain whether the award will return to its traditional annual cycle – Watts told Legal Week it was possible that the panel will make further changes to the system. Areas likely to be considered are cost and the reference process once again, sparking debate on the credibility of the selection panel.
Watts commented: "There is a presumption that all those concerned will want to proceed for the next competition, but this is likely to depend on practical issues that might need to be resolved, such as fee levels, which need careful consideration."
He added: "We need to see if the application form and reference process need additional improvements. Any changes will need Secretary of State approval and all this will take time."
Wilberforce Chambers chief executive Declan Redmond (pictured) commented: "Some of the changes that were made after last year's process, such as allowing foreign references, were beneficial, but to keep making changes could cause more problems."
He added: "I do not see what could be changed apart from logistics. If they make changes which quicken up the process and make it easier and cheaper, then change will be good, but it needs to stick so we can have some stability."
It was expected that the new system would take longer than its predecessor due to the extra layer of filtering introduced through the nine-member selection panel, compared with the previous informal process.
However, the lengthy process will cause many to question whether the new system is the right one, with some barristers effectively having had their career development put on hold for the past five years.
Watts concluded: "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."
Four Pump Court chief executive Carolyn McCombe commented: "Some of the changes that were introduced last time have been good and it is inevitable that when you introduce a new system there will be teething problems. However, from an applicant's point of view, it would be useful to have some certainty in terms of the timetable so they knew dates for application and announcement, like the old system."
Pupillage numbers remain at stable levels
At a time of uncertainty for the upper levels of the profession, there seems to be a good indication that activity at the lower echelons is healthy, with the number of pupils being taken on approximately the same as last year.
Between October 2006 and September 2007, 526 gained pupillage, compared to 515 the year before, with many chambers maintaining the numbers of pupillages offered between the two years at the same level.
Essex Court Chambers senior clerk David Grief commented: "This is a very good sign that there is a consistency in the numbers of those taking up pupillage. The figures show stability and a confidence in the future of the Bar."
However, these numbers are down on the 2004-05 figures, which showed 598 students being offered a pupillage.
The release of the statistics comes just before Lord Neuberger reveals the recommendations of his 'Entry to the Bar' working party, which aims to improve access to and diversity at the Bar.
The committee has been discussing responses to an interim report it issued in April and is on schedule to report by the end of the year on proposals such as raising the academic entry requirements to the Bar to a 2:1, competency tests and the return of the unfunded pupillage.
The issue of pupillage availability has been one that has plagued the Bar since the implementation of the Woolf reforms in 1999, which have led to a decrease in traditional litigation.
Nine Gough Square tenant Tom Little, a former chairman of the Bar Council's young Bar committee, said: "The figures show that despite pressures and concerns, chambers are still offering a significant number of pupillages, which is good for the future and the diversity of the profession."
Bar Council leadership results revealed
The Bar Council has elected its future leadership with the appointment of 5 Raymond Buildings' joint head, Desmond Browne QC, as its chairman-elect.
The decision, which was announced on 9 October, will see Browne take up the vice chairman role on 1 January, 2008. By convention, it is likely that Browne will take the helm of the Bar as chairman the year after. The current vice chair, Fountain Court Chambers' Timothy Dutton QC, will replace Geoffrey Vos QC as chairman in the new year.
In addition, the head of criminal set Furnival Chambers, Andrew Mitchell QC, has been elected as treasurer, succeeding Temple Tax Chambers' David Southern. Mitchell will also take up his new role on 1 January.
All three members stood unopposed for their new posts.
Browne, a media law specialist who was called to the Bar in 1969 and took silk in 1990, is heavily involved in the Bar Council's lobbying efforts on the Legal Services Bill and is chair of the Bar's Clementi Group.
Browne will be looking into a raft of issues at the Bar Council, including the implementation of the Legal Services Bill. "Putting the Legal Services Bill into effect is just as important as the Act itself," he said.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 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