Congratulations to all 88 barristers who have been made Queen's Counsel in this year's appointment process. The cherry on the icing of a long hard career at the glamorous end of legal practice.
Particularly worthy of praise amongst the new intake is David Wolfe of high-profile Matrix Chambers. He's been in the news recently having acted for the excellent-named Clive Bone in the Bideford Council
But there's an interesting footnote to his appointment to the superhuman rank of QC. Matrix is a trendy sort of set, not the sort of place where you might imagine barristers are overly worried about joining the Sumptions and Grabiners, Robertsons and Kavanaghs on a position as arcane and fusty as QC. And anyway, isn't the whole system a bit elitist and boring anyway? Isn't it just an opportunity to add another zero to your brief fee?
David Wolfe QC looking pretty furious about having applied for and having been appointed Queen's Counsel
David Wolfe certainly thinks taking silk isn't all that. Or at least he used to. Thanks to the eagle-eyed Roffer who brought our attention to the open letter Wolfe and ten of his fellow Matrix barristers wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department way back in 2003, calling for, errr, the abolition of the QC system. In the letter Wolfe (plus nine silks and his fellow "junior" Murray Hunt) bravely took a stand against silk, stating that they would not apply for the position and claiming "The QC system cannot be justified as being in the public interest or promoting competition."
RoF Team got in touch with the Wolfe-man to remind him of his youthful indiscretion. He said "Thanks for the opportunity to restate my personal views on the QC system. 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."
That all sounds fair enough. But there was a sting in the tail, too, as he continued: "Separately, perhaps we can discuss the Bideford case (which you appear to have misunderstood) on another occasion?” Ouch.
Category
Comments
104
99
82
116
110
90
But you went further. Notwithstanding the point you make below, you said, in terms, that you would never apply.
What happened to your principled stance against the system? And isn't "integrity" one of the key competencies which must be demonstrated as part of the selection process?
96
106
The court will no doubt be interested to learn why you are not working at junior rates...
85
114
If those of you who are doing that would like to come into the open, I'd be delighted to discuss the issues with you.
Anyway, as I've explained in another post on this blog, I've not changed my views on the QC system and will continue to argue against it.
All that's changed is the tactics I adopt for trying to bring about change, in the publiic interest. No embarassment at all on my part.
David Wolfe
107
110
I read your letter at the time it was published and I commented to my colleague: "I wonder how long before he applies; this letter will come back to bite him".
The argument that you cannot service your clients without being in silk is nonsense. The fact is that you did not just oppose the system, you said that you would not apply.
All of the arguments which applied then, apply now. Nothing has changed ... apart from your "principles"!
115
110
102
97
He has given an eloquent and fair explanation of why he decided to go back on his previous position (whilst remaining critical of the system), and he's told us that he's really enjoyed the opportunity to express his views.