Editing King's Counsel (section)

===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>