Talk:Queen's Counsel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Is this original work? -- Zoe

Surely a better example of a QC can be presented than Kim Campbell, one of the most embarrassing politicians in Canadian history.Loomis51 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In England, QC's wear a different robe than other barristers. A photo of one of those would be far better illustration for this article than a pic of Canada's most useless ex-PM.
A photograph of Cherie Blair has now been substituted, which is a better shot of the wig and robes. A "Spy" cartoon of a silk in Court (as opposed to ceremonial) dress has also been added. Photography is largely forbidden in English courtrooms and so it is hard to find a non-copyright photograph of a silk in Court. Chelseaboy 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I can probably source a pic of a QC in robes which is not copyrighted. Leave it with me. --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Clarification needed?

From my understanding of QCs in Australia, the title is still in common use but the article says otherwise. Can anyone offer a citation, or something, to clarify matters? Mattabat 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose?

Can someone explain the purpose of obtaining the title? Is it merely honorific? In jurisdictions like the United States, becoming a United States Attorney or White House Counsel designates a specific job function. What special rights or duties does a QC have?

My understanding is that it does not confer any special rights or duties. Usually it is perceived as justifying a significant increase in the fees charged by the barrister in question.Fat Red 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
QC's are generally given larger and better cases, and may 'lead' other, less senior (or 'junior') barristers. It is seen by many as a 'quality mark' of a experianced and talented advocate. Suicidal mongoose 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally get big bucks.martianlostinspace 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a severely erroneous statement 'to get big bucks', it's regarded as an honour, besides there is invariably juniors who operate in commercial law who are earning a damn site more than QCs practising in lower paid areas. I don't dispute that there is an incentive of money, although it's nigh upon a myth that all people in the legal profession are multi- millionaires, a mere 40 people in England & Wales who are lawyers earn over £1 million a year, Jonathan Sumption earns the most, yet it's still only £1.6 million, which as he pointed out is peanuts compared to what people performing only cosmetic duties (ones that society doesn't require to operate in a civilised and ordered way), such as entertainers and sportspeople, are making.

Back to the point that it's about money, I don't see that you can claim someone could be in the finest 10% (or at least in the government's opinion, who select QCs) of barristers, if their only incentive was money. You would need a passion for your work, barristers, and indeed other lawyers, have to toil day and night to even get a hope of being a QC, money alone wouldn't motive someone through that. They would need to firmly enjoy the law, they would have to live and breath it, and yes then the money would be a bonus.

82.3.225.184 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a little bit thin-skinned. Although elevation to a QC is supposed to be a hallmark of quality as an advocate and as a lawyer, it is certainly regularly referred to as a "passport to higher earnings" within the profession. It isn't "all about the money" - it is probably more about prestige and recognition - but in the modern era the money is unquestionably a big part of it (certainly in the UK anyhow). All the gumph about about a duty to represent the crown disappeared centuries ago. Interestingly, it is not mentioned in the article, but more than one barrister has actually wrecked their career by taking silk too early, and their clients not thinking that they justified the higher fees. Such barristers usually get bounced onto the High Court bench. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, however it looks like most of the page has been cut and pasted from this article here: http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Queens_Counsel.htm and not referenced to them that I can see:

by Noel Cox, Auckland University of Technology and Professor Peter Spiller, University of Waikato first published [2000] New Zealand Law Journal 371-373 Calanen 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In Canada Queen's counsel also wear different gowns or robes of silk (instead of "stuff gowns").

[edit] Resigning as MP

The patent of precedence article say that QCs used to have to resign as MPs on appointment. When did this end? Is the background interesting? Cutler 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but as I'm sure you know it's not possible to unilaterally resign membership of the UK House of Commons. There are ways of arranging to become ineligible (Chiltern Hundreds etc), but even these technically depend on the say-so of another person even if in practice such requests are always granted. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

How about a category for QCs and KCs? --Counter-revolutionary 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Long Sentences

Quoting one paragraph:

"The appointment of Queen's Counsel was suspended in 2003 and it was widely expected that the system would be abolished, although existing QCs were not affected by the suspension. However, a vigorous campaign was mounted in defence of the system, including those who supported it as an independent indication of excellence valued by outsiders who did not have much else to go on, and especially foreign commercial litigants, and those who contended in a letter to The Times in London that it was a means whereby the most able barristers from ethnic minorities could overcome prejudice. The Government's focus then 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, which was said to be inappropriate and unfair given the size of the modern profession, 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 (especially women) and ethnic minorities."

I'm not going to edit this due to the specialized subject matter, but this paragraph might be improved by dividing it into more than three sentences. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that paragraph is factually inaccurate. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media references to QCs/SCs

I don't know if this is just an Australian thing or not. Whenever a QC/SC is mentioned in the media, they always seem to get the postnominal: "Murgatroyd Titfink SC has been appointed a judge of the ... court"; "The alleged bankrobber will be represented by Denzil Blathercombe QC", etc. Other people with postnominals don't get this treatment. We never hear "The former Prime Minister Bob Hawke AC announced today ...." or "The Olympic delegation will be led by Dawn Fraser AO MBE". Why is this distinction made for QC/SCs? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)