A barrister who had previously supported the abolition of the QC system and said he would never apply for silk has, errr, been appointed Queen's Counsel. He is joining a small crop of 88 top barristers donning new silky gowns.
As revealed on RollOnFriday earlier this week, David Wolfe QC, of Matrix Chambers co-signed an idealistic open letter to the Lord Chancellor in 2003 (when he was a junior) calling for an end to the QC system, and stating that he would never apply. The letter poured scorn on the system, stating that it "[could not] be justified as being in the public interest or promoting competition". Doesn't time fly?
RollOnFriday contacted the freshly-minted QC, who said "I applied this time when it was clear that lack of ‘QC’ meant I was losing work and could not service my clients fully. But I will not be putting my fees up as a result of it, and I continue vigorously to push for effective quality assurance systems for all advocates, which the QC system is not. Lack of mandatory periodic re-accreditation, and the lack of any real linkage to area of practice remain just two of the fundamental problems. So no ‘youthful indiscretion’ here - sorry to disappoint".
The results of the 2011/12 competition show a marked decline in the number of applications. Only 214 barristers put their names forward, and the 88 acceptances make for a lowly 41% success rate. Last year, 251 put their names forward and 120 - 48% - made the grade. In 2009/10, the figure was 275, with 129 successes (47%). And that's nothing compared to the 443 who put themselves forward in 2005/06 (admittedly following a three year embargo on promotions). Could the decline in applications be something to do with the £2,340 fee for the pleasure of filling in the 63 page form? Or does it just reflect the continuing squeeze on the Bar - most notable at the junior end?
Despite regular claims that the Bar is a boys club, it seems the chances of taking silk are much improved if you're a woman. From the admittedly small pool of 40 female applicants, 23 were successful, which is a healthy 58%. But rather depressingly, only 15 applicants declared a non-white ethnic background, a mere 7% of the total. So much for diversity at the Bar.
Tip Off ROF
As revealed on RollOnFriday earlier this week, David Wolfe QC, of Matrix Chambers co-signed an idealistic open letter to the Lord Chancellor in 2003 (when he was a junior) calling for an end to the QC system, and stating that he would never apply. The letter poured scorn on the system, stating that it "[could not] be justified as being in the public interest or promoting competition". Doesn't time fly?
RollOnFriday contacted the freshly-minted QC, who said "I applied this time when it was clear that lack of ‘QC’ meant I was losing work and could not service my clients fully. But I will not be putting my fees up as a result of it, and I continue vigorously to push for effective quality assurance systems for all advocates, which the QC system is not. Lack of mandatory periodic re-accreditation, and the lack of any real linkage to area of practice remain just two of the fundamental problems. So no ‘youthful indiscretion’ here - sorry to disappoint".
 |
David Wolfe QC. Coming to a courtroom near you soon. |
The results of the 2011/12 competition show a marked decline in the number of applications. Only 214 barristers put their names forward, and the 88 acceptances make for a lowly 41% success rate. Last year, 251 put their names forward and 120 - 48% - made the grade. In 2009/10, the figure was 275, with 129 successes (47%). And that's nothing compared to the 443 who put themselves forward in 2005/06 (admittedly following a three year embargo on promotions). Could the decline in applications be something to do with the £2,340 fee for the pleasure of filling in the 63 page form? Or does it just reflect the continuing squeeze on the Bar - most notable at the junior end?
Despite regular claims that the Bar is a boys club, it seems the chances of taking silk are much improved if you're a woman. From the admittedly small pool of 40 female applicants, 23 were successful, which is a healthy 58%. But rather depressingly, only 15 applicants declared a non-white ethnic background, a mere 7% of the total. So much for diversity at the Bar.
Comments
305
289
302
299
312
284
294
290
298
307
I took a stand ten years ago as part of a campaign to try to bring about change in the public interest. I’m still trying to do that and will continue to do so.
I’m certainly not embarrassed still to be pushing for a proper quality assurance system for all advocates. I've just changed the way I'm going about it - is that so bad?
As I said ten years ago, the QC system cannot be justified as being in the public interest or promoting competition. At the very least it would need to include mandatory periodic re-accreditation and linkage to specialist work types before it could properly make such claims. I’ve not changed my mind on any of that – contrary to what you seem to think.
If I’d “taken silk” and then gone quiet or, worse still, come out in support of the existing system – hypocrisy indeed - you would have had a point. But that’s not my style.
And signing up as a QC so that I can better represent my clients’ interests is surely no great crime either?
But anyway, I am flattered by your interest in my views. Thanks for that.
David Wolfe
299
291
your "style" appears to consist of securing your own professional reputation and workload by reaping the advantages of a system that you fundamentally don't agree with. your "bringing down the system from within" spiel is arguably even more weaselly than the open hypocrisy you shun.
still, at least we can all sleep soundly having had more proof (as if any more was needed) that a good lawyer always knows how to u-turn in style. if i were you i wouldn't have responded.
293
302
What an arrogant twerp.
308
283
I do happen to agree with the QC tradition and it would be sad to see it go. But come on... What were you saying yourself ten years ago and is it consisten with the way you act today?
278
311
320
284
Can be pretty sure you wouldn't have lost work if you hadn't already put up your prices to those a QC charges.
"will not be putting up my prices because of it"
Raising prices before taking silk is equivalent to raising prices after taking silk as above. Also, are you saying that, in the long term, you will not charge the rates your clients are willing to pay? Balls. A short-term price freeze is pretty meaningless.
"so I can better represent my clients' interests"
This is a clever way of saying: "potential clients will not choose me to represent their interests as lead counsel on big cases unless I take silk". Taking silk will not enable you to represent your clients' interests any better once you have been given a brief.
291
304
David is an excellent, most principalled and dedicated lawyer, who has the highest moral and ethical standards, who pulls out all the stops, and at the same time is most approachable, intuitive, and easy to get on with, with such a great way with his clients. Anyone watching him in action in the courts cannot fail to be impressed by his demeanour and superior ability.
If those two letters assist him to do his utmost to get redress for his clients who have been so unfairly treated, often by the "misdeeds" of government/agencies, then it is the right move. Of course he does not win all the cases he takes on, as they are so often such difficult cases, against government battalions of lawyers, who enjoy unlimited tax payers money to fund it all, while David acts for the ill-treated underdogs, i.e. ordinary citizens of the UK who are faced with not only malpractise by the government of the day, but also by the Judicial System of "judicial discretion" - as well documented in the infamous Edwards and another Rugby Cement case.
Watch David go from strength to strength and celebrate with him! If you ever needed a lawyer you could do no better!
287
279
I want to comment that the "losing work" issue is not, as a previous comment suggested, a matter of pure economics i.e. of charging rate. In the high profile end of work, instructions will be made on clout or standing and reputation so that the case will win. A cheaper option is not chosen in these cases, only the better option, that is the one most likely to lead to success.
The issue is then, why do these two letters mean so much? And why does it affect the choice, when solicitors should know what the real substance of the lawyer is? I think it's in part the fact that they know that (rather older, stuffier, less progressive lawyers who are) the judges in Courts respond to notices of hierarchy like this; and in part because they feel safer or find it easier to opt for surface gravitas. Solicitors play into the archaic system as much as it pre-exists (and they feel they have to).
The issue DW highlights, and most people probably agree with, is that having two letters to denote quality is fine only if it means quality. More stringent and ongoing quality assurance is a reasonable and sensible proposal for enhancement of the system. I hope the standing he now has helps effect that improvement.
303
282
312
298