find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
Bar closed on QC comment

Bar closed on QC comment

Key figures involved in a Bar Association report that is supposed to provide guidance on whether to reinstate Queen’s Counsel in NSW have avoided speaking publicly on the issue.

In the report released this month (16 April), the NSW Bar Association’s QC/SC Committee outlined arguments for and against bringing back the QC post-nominal but failed to make any recommendations.

The executive director of the NSW Bar Association, Philip Selth OAM, told Lawyers Weekly that the report is before the Bar Council for consideration, but would not answer any specific questions posed by Lawyers Weekly.

“The report speaks for itself,” he said.

Members of the QC/SC Committee were also tight-lipped when approached by Lawyers Weekly, including Anthony Lo Surdo SC and Elizabeth Cheeseman SC.

When asked about the report findings, Cheeseman would only echo Selth’s comment that “the report speaks for itself”.

Lawyers Weekly also approached the committee’s chair L J Priestley QC, who did not respond to requests for an interview.

In the wake of the report, a vocal supporter of re-instating QC in NSW, Jeffrey Phillips SC from Sydney’s Denman Chambers, urged the Bar Council to conduct a Bar-wide vote on the issue.

“It’s such an important issue, an issue people hold very firm and very emotional opinions about, and the best way to deal with it is to have a full vote of the Bar to determine which way we go,” he told Lawyers Weekly.

 

Not talking now, but watch this space

Lawyers Weekly contacted the newly-appointed NSW Attorney-General to discuss whether he supported the return of QC in NSW. Brad Hazzard said via a spokesperson that he could not currently provide his view on the topic, but planned to consider the issue and reveal his position in the near future.

Other state Attorneys-General have been more forthright.

Hazzard’s recently-ousted predecessor, Greg Smith SC, did not support the reintroduction of QC in NSW; nor does Shadow Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Paul Lynch.

Meanwhile, in Queensland, Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie openly supported the return of the QC post-nominal.

Bleijie dumped SC altogether in reviving the QC title last year. Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark also gave silk appointees in the state the option to have the title QC or SC in February.

Sydney barrister John Hyde Page commented that the appointment of a new Attorney-General in NSW could improve the chances of a Bar Council request to amend the relevant legislation being actioned by the government.

 

Public interest?

The Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) currently prohibits official schemes for recognition of seniority or status, including “the prerogative right or power of the Crown to appoint persons as QC”.

Hyde Page, who is rallying support for the return of QC, slammed the main argument against a legislative change contained in the Bar Association report, which claimed the move is not justified in the public interest.

“There is a clear public interest in keeping the NSW Bar in line with other states, and in line with contemporary opinion,” Hyde Page told Lawyers Weekly.

“The SC post-nominal is an artefact of the embarrassing debates we used to have in the early 1990s about national identity. It belongs in the dust-bin of history, along with those proposals for a new Australian flag.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Bar closed on QC comment
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...