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
NSW Bar Council rejects QC motion

NSW Bar Council rejects QC motion

The NSW Bar Association has decided against seeking the Attorney-General’s support for the re-instatement of Queen’s Counsel in NSW.

Earlier this month (9 May) Association president Philip Boulten SC informed members that having considered the findings of a recent report by the SC/QC Working Group, the Bar Council would not take steps to bring back the QC post-nominal.

Four out of seven members of the committee chaired by the Hon L J Priestley QC voted against the motion, which was initially brought by Sydney barrister John Hyde Page in February.

“This was the wrong decision,” Hyde Page told Lawyers Weekly. “But there will continue to be overwhelming support for this change in NSW, and in the long run I think it will happen.”

Boulten stated that the Bar Council believed there was no public interest in approaching the Attorney-General, and that any system involving the Executive Government in the silk appointment process could compromise the independence of the NSW Bar.

“It would be impossible to guarantee that such a system could be established without the prospect of intervention by the Government,” he wrote in an email to members of the NSW Bar Association.

 

Respected QC speaks out against a return to the past

Former Federal Court Judge Kevin Lindgren QC  (pictured on the right with Jones Day partner John Emmerig at a conference in March) agreed that government involvement in the silk process was “the real threat” that SC guards against.

Speaking with Lawyers Weekly, Lindgren said he respects the opinions of barristers in favour of reinstating QC, but his personal view is that such a move would be “unfortunate”.

Lindgren, 74, claimed that since all appointments since 1993 have been as SC, the nomenclature is well established and recognised in NSW, and as the remaining QCs die or retire, the argument that QC is the more prestigious title will become a moot point.

“If the NSW Bar holds out long enough .... SCs will have the day anyway; they’ll all be SCs.”

Lindgren conceded that the existence of two titles could be problematic for SCs in some areas of international practice because overseas practitioners and their clients may wrongly think that QC signifies a higher rank. He added, however, that “this is hardly the position in the domestic market where the true position is well understood”.

When asked whether the reinstatement of QC in Queensland and Victoria should influence the debate in NSW, Lindgren commented that the NSW Bar was strong enough to stand on its own.

Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark announced in February that silk appointees in the state will have the option to have the title of QC or SC. The SC/QC Working Group report has revealed that 156 of 177 SCs in Victoria have since applied to be appointed as QC.

The state followed Queensland’s lead in restoring QC, with Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie dumping SC altogether in 2013.

Seventy of that state’s 73 senior counsel changed their title to QC in the wake of that announcement.

Unlike Victoria or Queensland, re-introducing the QC title in NSW requires a legislative amendment.

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”.

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

NSW Bar Council rejects QC motion
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 & ...