QC 2009 – they’ll be back

You have to give the QC system credit - no matter how many times it's predicted to be on the way out, just like the Terminator, it keeps coming back for more.

And the current round, announced today, appears to be winning more support at the Bar after the two earlier rounds of the relaunched QC kitemark were met with criticism for an unwieldy and expensive applications process.

By general consent, the revised and slimmed-down version has been an improvement, even if the new version has come at a considerable cost – around £6,000 for successful applicants.

Perhaps the warm glow of this year’s round had something to do with the improving odds of success. The success rate of 42% was well up on the 29% rate in 2008, and far higher than the levels of success seen in the latter part of the secret sounding years. Particularly striking is the success rate for female applicants which, at 55%, a cynic could find suspiciously high given the political imperative to ensure Silk 2.0 looks more inclusive.

Yet despite the rising success rate, the honours have not been spread that evenly this year, with Brick Court Chambers and One Essex Court rather hogging the glory this year, gaining four and three new silks respectively. 

As usual, solicitor advocate appointments are in the minority, with just three from a total of four applications. However, it is notable this year to see litigators from US-based law firms once again triumph, with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton’s Romano Subiotto and Debevoise & Plimpton’s Peter Rees both among the new QCs (Allen & Overy’s Judith Gill was the third).

With Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom’s Paul Mitchard last year being recognised and Debevoise in 2007 retaining the services of one Lord Goldsmith QC, US firms in London are building a notable stable of advocates. Coming in the same week that Debevoise secured the services of former US attorney general Michael Mukasey, it’s clear that US law firms’ unambiguous commitment to litigation makes them a powerful draw for heavyweight advocates.

Still, even if silk is providing stubbornly durable, current indications are that it is struggling to keep up with the once-a-year frequency it was supposed to achieve after its reboot, which if nothing else will damage its position as a fixture in the legal calendar. With applications now running at roughly half the 500 a year originally envisaged, the future of its supposedly self-funding model doesn’t look entirely assured yet either. Still, these will doubtless be minor obstacles for a quality mark that looks like it could survive a nuclear explosion.

For more, see Brick Court quartet among 104 to take silk.