QC applications slump again in 2008
The QC appointments process for 2008 has got off to a rocky start after it was revealed this week that applications for the elite kitemark have fallen by more than a quarter from last year's figure. A total of 247 applications have been received by the QC Appointments Panel this year after the deadlines for applications passed on 3 April. The figure represents a drop of around 26% from last year's total of 333 applications, which itself was down from 443 in the 2006 round.
May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM
2 minute read
The QC appointments process for 2008 has got off to a rocky start after it was revealed this week that applications for the elite kitemark have fallen by more than a quarter from last year's figure.
A total of 247 applications have been received by the QC Appointments Panel this year after the deadlines for applications passed on 3 April. The figure represents a drop of around 26% from last year's total of 333 applications, which itself was down from 443 in the 2006 round.
The news leaves the system facing a major shortfall from the 500 applicants originally anticipated by the QC Appointments Panel, the body charged with overseeing the self-financing process.
The number of female applicants has dipped significantly, down to 29 from 51 last year and 68 in 2006. Applications by those from ethnic minority backgrounds also dropped, down to 15 from 20 last year and 22 the year before.
One Essex Court senior clerk Paul Shrubsall (pictured) commented: "I am not surprised at the drop in the number of those applying. It is a complex and expensive process, which takes a full week to fill in. That can be quite off-putting to those wishing to apply."
Applicants are expected to show competency in understanding and use of the law; oral and written advocacy; working with others; diversity; and integrity. Interviews are expected to take place in October or November, with successful candidates likely to be notified early next year.
Successful applicants will be expected to pay a £3,500 fee – £500 more than last year – on top of the initial application fee.
Almost 100 barristers gained QC status in the 2007 silk round, announced last January – 18 months after the previous batch of silks had been appointed.
Editors' Blog: Last orders for QC?
This content has been archived.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