Editing King's Counsel (section)

==Recent developments in the United Kingdom==

{{More citations needed|section|date=July 2021}}

===England and Wales===

In 1994, solicitors of England and Wales became entitled to gain [[rights of audience]] in the higher courts, and some 275 were so entitled in 1995. In 1995, these solicitors became entitled to apply for appointment as Queen's Counsel. The first two solicitors were appointed on 27 March 1997, out of 68 new QCs. These were Arthur Marriott<!-- do not link Marriott, goes to a non-lawyer cricketer -->, partner in the London office of the [[Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr]], and [[Lawrence Collins, Baron Collins of Mapesbury|Lawrence Collins]], a partner in the [[City of London]] law firm [[Herbert Smith]]. Collins was subsequently appointed a [[High Court judge (England and Wales)|High Court judge]] and ultimately a [[Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10697.asp |title=Appointment of Justice Lawrence Collins |date=8 January 2007 |publisher=Office of the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] |access-date=30 January 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071005150259/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10697.asp |archive-date=5 October 2007 }}</ref>

The appointment of new Queen's Counsel was suspended in 2003, and it was widely expected that the system would be abolished. However, a vigorous campaign was mounted in defence of the system. Supporters included those who considered it as an independent indication of excellence to those (especially foreign commercial litigants) who did not have much else to go on,<ref>{{cite web | title=Building on Strength: The response of the Commercial Bar Association | url=http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/supremecourt/responses/sc033.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/supremecourt/responses/sc033.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |pages=39–57 (15ff in the PDF) | date=3 November 2003 |access-date=17 February 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Letter from the Lord Mayor of the City of London | author=Gavyn Arthur | url=http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc014.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc014.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live | date=5 November 2003 |access-date=17 February 2009}}</ref> and those who contended that it was a means whereby the most able barristers from ethnic minorities could advance and overcome prejudice as well as better represent members of an increasingly diverse society.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1007444.ece | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110629122200/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1007444.ece | url-status = dead | archive-date = 29 June 2011 | title = Barristers from ethnic minorities | access-date  = 17 February 2009 | author = Courtenay Griffiths |author2=Linda Dobbs |author3=Oba Nsugbe  | date = 3 November 2003 | department = Letters to the Editor | work = The Times| quote = The hopes of a rising cohort of black and Asian practitioners would be dashed at a stroke by the abolition of silk, and a huge opportunity to promote diversity in the legal profession and on the bench would be missed. }}</ref>

The government's focus switched from abolition to reform and, in particular, reform of the much-criticised "secret soundings" of judges and other establishment legal figures upon which the old system was based. This was held to be inappropriate and unfair given the size of the modern profession, as well as a possible source of improper government patronage (since the final recommendations were made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the government), and discriminatory against part-time workers, women, and ethnic minorities.{{citation needed|date=April 2024}}

In November 2004, after much public debate in favour of and against retaining the title,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc332.pdf|title=Constitutional reform: the future of Queen's Counsel.|publisher=[[Lord Chancellor|The Lord Chancellor]], [[Department for Constitutional Affairs]]|page=9|access-date=30 January 2009}}</ref> the government announced that appointments of Queen's Counsel in England would be resumed but that future appointees would be chosen not by the government but by a nine-member panel, the [[King's Counsel Selection Panel|Queen's Counsel Selection Panel]],<ref name="qcpanel">{{cite web |title=The Selection Panel |url=https://qcappointments.org/the-selection-panel/ |website=Queen's Counsel Appointments |access-date=9 December 2021}}</ref> chaired by a lay person, to include two barristers, two solicitors, one retired judge, and three non-lawyers. Formally, the appointment remains a royal one made on the advice of the [[Lord Chancellor]], but without comment on individual applications. The Lord Chancellor supervises the process and reviews the panel's recommendations in general terms (to be satisfied that the process as operated is fair and efficient).

Application forms under the new system were released in July 2005 and the appointment of 175 new Queen's Counsel was announced on 20 July 2006. A total of 443 people had applied (including 68 women, 24 ethnic minority lawyers, and 12 solicitors). Of the 175 appointed, 33 were women, 10 were ethnic minorities, and four were solicitors. Six people were also appointed QC ''honoris causa''.<ref name="MoJ_Aug07">{{cite web|publisher=Ministry of Justice |url=http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement_130807a.htm |title=Honorary QC nominations |work=Announcements 2007 |quote=The six appointees in 2006 were... |date=13 August 2007 |access-date=29 January 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081121043736/http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement_130807a.htm |archive-date=21 November 2008 }}</ref>

===Northern Ireland===

The title of KC continued to be used under the rule of Queen Elizabeth II. In 1998 two Northern Ireland barristers ([[Seamus Treacy]] and Barry Macdonald) opposed the requirement of swearing an oath of allegiance to the Crown. The Bar Council, the body which represents barristers' interests, had agreed, in the ''Elliott Report'', that the royal oath should be dropped and replaced by a more neutral statement. It suggested that, instead of declaring services to Queen Elizabeth, barristers should "sincerely promise and declare that I will well and truly serve all whom I may lawfully be called to serve in the office of one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law according to the best of my skill and understanding".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.birw.org/rep2000/augsept2000.html |title=Director's Report, August/September 2000 |last=Winter |first=Jane |date=30 September 2000 |publisher=British Irish Rights Watch |access-date=30 January 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081221132019/http://www.birw.org/rep2000/augsept2000.html |archive-date=21 December 2008 }}</ref>{{Dubious|Northern Ireland|date=January 2009}}

In 1997, the [[Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland|Lord Chief Justice]], [[Robert Carswell, Baron Carswell|Sir Robert Carswell]], wrote "I have little doubt myself that this is all part of an ongoing {{Sic|hide=y|politically|-}}based campaign to have the office of Queen's Counsel replaced by a rank entitled Senior Counsel, or something to that effect".<ref>{{cite web |date=February 2000 |title=Additional Submission to the Criminal Justice Review |url=http://www.caj.org.uk/keydocs/AddRevCJR.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081222005314/http://www.caj.org.uk/keydocs/AddRevCJR.html |archive-date=22 December 2008 |access-date=30 January 2009 |publisher=[[Committee on the Administration of Justice]]}}</ref>

In 2000, the [[Northern Ireland High Court]] ruled in the barristers' favour. After more wrangling, the barristers were permitted to make "a more neutral statement" of commitment to principles.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2002/en/ukpgaen_20020026_en_1|title=Explanatory Notes to Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002|date=16 October 2002|publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information]]|access-date=30 January 2009}}</ref>{{Dubious|Northern Ireland|date=January 2009}}

===Scotland===

The independent bar is organised as the [[Faculty of Advocates]] and its members are known not as barristers but as advocates. The position of Queen's Counsel was not recognised before 1868. The Scottish bar did have a concept of senior counsel before the introduction of the formal rank of Queen's Counsel. An advocate would self-declare that they were 'giving up writing', meaning that they would no longer draft pleadings and move onto a supervisory role in litigation. In practice this meant that the practitioner would review and revise the written pleadings of their junior.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shiels |first1=Robert S |title=Queen's Counsel in Scotland |journal=Scots Law Times |date=2007 |volume=2007 |issue=18 |page=121}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shiels |first1=Robert S |title=The introduction of silk into Scotland |journal=Scots Law Times |date=2017 |volume=2017 |issue=20 |page=99}}</ref>

Initially the status of QC was reserved first for law officers ([[Lord Advocate]] and [[Solicitor General for Scotland]]) and soon after for the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. In 1897, a petition by the Faculty of Advocates for the establishment of a Scottish roll of Queen's Counsel was approved, and the names of the first appointees were published in the Edinburgh Gazette on 3 September 1897.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shiels |first1=Robert S |title=The introduction of silk into Scotland |journal=Scots Law Times |date=2017 |volume=2017 |issue=20 |page=102}}</ref> By decision of [[James Robertson, Baron Robertson|Lord President Robertson]], these first Scottish Queen's Counsel were not required to make a declaration not to act against the Crown, and so Scottish King's Counsel have never been required to obtain a licence to plead in order to do so.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shiels |first1=Robert S |title=The introduction of silk into Scotland |journal=Scots Law Times |date=2017 |volume=2017 |issue=20 |page=101}}</ref>

In 2005, there were more than 150 QCs in Scotland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/06/16100924 |title=Appointment of Queen's Counsel |publisher=Scotland.gov.uk |date=16 June 2005 |access-date=19 January 2012}}</ref> The appointment of King's Counsel is made on the recommendation of the [[Lord President of the Court of Session|Lord Justice General]] to the [[First Minister of Scotland]], formerly the [[Secretary of State for Scotland]]. In the 1990s, rules were changed so that solicitors with rights of audience in the [[Court of Session]] or High Court of Justiciary were permitted to apply for appointment, and two or three have done so. A solicitor advocate who is so appointed is designated as ''King's Counsel, Solicitor Advocate''.

===<span class="anchor" id="King's Counsel (''honoris causa'')">''Honoris causa''</span>===

An award of King's Counsel ''honoris causa'' (honorary KC) may be made to lawyers who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales but who operate outside court practice.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queens-counsel-in-england-and-wales-2013 |title=Announcement: Queens Counsel in England and Wales 2013  |author=[[Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Justice]] |date=27 February 2013 |publisher=[[Gov.uk|GOV.UK]] |access-date=29 June 2014}}</ref><ref name="sixthformlaw1">{{cite web |url=http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_4_legal_personnel/1_4_2_barristers_solicitors/16_queen_counsel.htm |title=Barristers and solicitors - Queen's Counsel |last1=Souper |first1=M |publisher=Sixth Form Law |access-date=29 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102095315/http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_4_legal_personnel/1_4_2_barristers_solicitors/16_queen_counsel.htm |archive-date=2 November 2013 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>

=== <span class="anchor" id="Courtesy QC for Members of Parliament">Courtesy appointments for Members of Parliament</span>===

Until the 1990s there was a practice that sitting members of the UK Parliament (MPs) who were barristers were appointed QC, if they wished, on reaching a certain level of seniority of around fifteen years at the bar. Such appointments were sometimes known as "courtesy" or even "false" silk, and also as "nylons". In the 1990s, it was felt that the practice of granting silk to MPs in this way, without considering their abilities, devalued the rank and the practice was abolished.<ref name="sixthformlaw1"/>{{Better source needed|date=April 2021}}

However, for now the practice persists for law officers of the Crown.<ref name=Sixth>{{Cite web|url=http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_4_legal_personnel/1_4_2_barristers_solicitors/16_queen_counsel.htm|title=Barristers and solicitors - Queen's Counsel|publisher=6 Form Law|access-date=6 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170623053523/http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod1/1_4_legal_personnel/1_4_2_barristers_solicitors/16_queen_counsel.htm|archive-date=23 June 2017|url-status=usurped}}</ref> Former [[Attorney General for England and Wales]] [[Jeremy Wright]] was not a QC when he was appointed, a subject which attracted some comment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://venerablepuzzle.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/does-it-matter-that-camerons-new-attorney-general-isnt-a-qc/|title=Does It Matter That Cameron's New Attorney General Isn't a QC?|date=16 July 2014|access-date=25 January 2017}}</ref> Despite not having practised law for some time, Wright took silk shortly after his appointment, which was criticised by some as a breach of the protocol against "courtesy silk".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://counselofperfection.blogspot.com/2014/07/judge-man-by-his-actions-not-his.html|title=Judge a man by his actions not his website - Reflection on the Attorney General|author=Maximilian Hardy|date=17 July 2014|access-date=25 January 2017|quote=I do not believe it to be right that with the now well established mechanism in place for Queen's Counsel Appointments that the Law Officers should be awarded Silk as a courtesy title.}}</ref> Similarly when [[Harriet Harman]] was appointed as [[Solicitor General for England and Wales|Solicitor General]] she was made a QC. [[Suella Braverman]] took silk on 25 February 2020; earlier that month she had, like Wright, been appointed Attorney General.

===Death of Queen Elizabeth II===

Upon the [[death of Queen Elizabeth II]] and the succession of [[King Charles III]], the [[General Council of the Bar]] wrote that all QC titles changed to KC "with immediate effect".<ref>{{cite tweet |title=We have been advised by the Crown Office that the title Queen's Counsel (QC) changes to King's Counsel (KC) with immediate effect. The change is automatic so there are no new Letters Patent. |user=thebarcouncil | number=1567941550289592329 |author=Bar Council |access-date=8 September 2022 |language=en}}</ref> This was not a matter of decision by the Bar Council, nor by the Crown Office. It is the automatic effect of the [[Demise of the Crown Act 1901]], s 1.<ref>{{Cite legislation UK| type=act | year=1901 |chapter=5 | act = Demise of the Crown Act 1901 | section = 1 | date = 2 July 1901 | access-date = 13 September 2022 | quote=The holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, shall not be affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown.}}</ref>