Do you think a solictor or legal academic should be allowed to become a QC/SC? (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

I was bored and came across this argument-

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R31CHP9

What do you think? I understand that it is a little old as QC's are no longer appointed in NSW but rather SC's?. Still, the premise of the debate remains the same. If a solictor or academic offers distinction to the law and demonstrates a high level of competency and deep learning, should they be recognised with the eminence of SC? Sure, it is a title of deep distinction and public recognition, but should it be reserved for practising barristers? When would the Solictor get a chance to actually wear the 'silk'?

 

[hfis]

Personally I'm against it. Like most things at the bar, the QC/SC distinction exists because of the tradition and history behind it, and it seems almost counterfeit to apply it elsewhere. If solicitors want some more letters after their name they can always become accredited specialists, and academics can do PhDs/SJDs and get 'Dr' in front of their name. It's worth noting that both of these avenues convey a level of distinction and recognise the expertise of an individual, so if anything, allowing non-barristers to become SCs would be redundant.

 

[RogueAcademic]

Personally I'm against it. Like most things at the bar, the QC/SC distinction exists because of the tradition and history behind it, and it seems almost counterfeit to apply it elsewhere. If solicitors want some more letters after their name they can always become accredited specialists, and academics can do PhDs/SJDs and get 'Dr' in front of their name. It's worth noting that both of these avenues convey a level of distinction and recognise the expertise of an individual, so if anything, allowing non-barristers to become SCs would be redundant.

I agree.

This reminds me of a discussion I once saw in an internet forum, where these american law students/graduates were whinging about not being able to put "Dr" after their name after graduating with a Juris Doctor degree. I just had to laugh at the stupidity of them trying to equate a JD degree with a PhD degree and how they thought they 'deserved' a doctorate title.

PS. I did not read the lawlink article posted above.

 

[subdued123]

Agree with the above.

If you are interested, the changes from QC to SC occurred in the early 90s under the stewardship of the Law Society by the late John Marsden. As he noted in his autobiography, he felt the QC system unfairly allowed people to suddenly charge massive fees. He took moves to stop it, only to have the Bar Association change the title to SC.

Anyway, QC and SC have a common letter - C - for counsel - meaning barrister. It has always been, and always will, denote a leading barrister.

So to appoint solicitors as SCs is a bit ridiculous.

George Brandis, Liberal senator, ignited a bit of controversy when he was given the QC title (it being Queensland) while a senator - http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1835656.htm

Now, solicitors becoming judges - that's another debate. e.g Julie Ward of Mallesons getting the nod recently.

 

[Cookie182]

I agree with you guys, although it is an interesting debate. Personally, I wish we had a system where there was no distinction between a solicitor and barrister, similar to the states, however that is a different issue altogether. In regards to the topic I was able to find that a small number of solicitors had been granted the title QC since 1995 in England (just Wiki QC); however i do agree that the title should be reserved to recognise a distinguished advocate. I wasn't aware solicitors could become judges. Since solicitors are not as heavily trained in the etiquette of court, advocacy and evidence how is a solicitor-judge able to instruct counsel and make sure they obey the rules of the court when they have never practised themselves as a Barrister?

 

[Cookie182]

I agree.

This reminds me of a discussion I once saw in an internet forum, where these american law students/graduates were whinging about not being able to put "Dr" after their name after graduating with a Juris Doctor degree. I just had to laugh at the stupidity of them trying to equate a JD degree with a PhD degree and how they thought they 'deserved' a doctorate title.

PS. I did not read the lawlink article posted above.

Typical American law students haha