Last orders for QC?

It’s easy to score cheap points off the arcane practices of the Bar but, glancing at news of the fast-shrinking application numbers in this year’s silk round, I won’t let that stop me.

The figures released today (16 May) show that the numbers of hopefuls ready to this year stump up £3,500 is 247, substantially down on last year’s 333. This is also down on the 443 applications received in the first year of the reformed, supposedly self-funding award.

The initial forecast when drawing up the model was that there would be 500 applications annually and some even believed that pent-up demand would see as many as 1,000 apply in the first round after a three-year suspension of the old Government-endorsed version.

This shortfall in applications led the QC Appointment Panel to substantially raise the application fees to cover the cost of the assessment system to a current level of £6,000 for successful candidates. Given the costs and notorious complexity of the process, it’s hardly surprising that it is falling in popularity.

Obviously, this puts more pressure on the funding model, leaving only two choices: drastically simplify the process to cut costs or hike fees again. But further major hikes would retrench the awards’ position as something that only makes economic sense for commercial barristers who can afford it, thereby threatening to undermine its wider currency. Surely the only workable move is therefore to streamline the process substantially, though that wouldn’t look good as the applications model has already been overhauled once.

But at the risk of stating the obvious, it’s increasingly hard to see the point of the system at all. The logic of maintaining silk was always debateable given that barristers are, by definition, instructed by specialists. Given the historic attachment of 'QC' it was easy to understand why the Bar was intent on producing a modernised version rather than consign it to history (there was also a suspicion that then-Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer granted a stay of execution for political reasons).

But a decent and well-meaning attempt at reviving silk just isn’t, as yet, gaining the traction and credibility among the Bar it will need to survive. It’s hard to see a solution to this one.

alex.novarese@legalweek.com