You have 1 free article left this month.
Become a Premium Member to enjoy a wide range of benefits.
You have 1 free article left this month.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
The Bar

New Victorian silks given choice of QC or SC

Victoria’s most recently-anointed silks have been given the option of adopting the Queen’s Counsel (QC) title.

January 27, 2015 By Felicity Nelson
cable car victoria cityscape queens counsel title silks recently anointed silks option of adopting
expand image

The 18 barristers who became silks in November 2014 are the first group in 14 years to have the choice of being appointed as QC.

Victorian attorney-general Martin Pakula made the announcement on January 22.

Victoria ditched the QC title in favour of SC in 2000. When the post nominal was reintroduced in 2014, 89 per cent of Senior Counsel eligible to have their title changed to QC applied for ‘letters patent’.

The granting of ‘letters patent’ enables the use of the QC title.

Victorian Bar chairman Jim Peters QC (pictured below) welcomed the attorney-general’s announcement.

“The designation of QC is a mark of distinction recognised globally … the offer of choice by the Attorney-General assists advocates in competing internationally and in the domestic Australian level,” he explained. 

The attorney-general has also asked the Victorian Bar to undertake a review before any more QCs are appointed.

“This type of review was recently undertaken by the NSW Bar, which ultimately decided not to seek the reintroduction of Queen’s Counsel in NSW,” said Pakula.

Peters said the Victorian Bar would consult its members, the legal profession as a whole, and the wider community about the change.

Victoria followed Queensland’s lead by reintroducing the QC in February last year. NSW, WA, South Australia and the ACT still retain the SC title.

 

 

Comments (14)
  • Avatar
    <p>I totally agree with Rod Hooper. QC title is a joke!</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Its funny that so many members of the republican movement were lawyers - getting the pleasure of feeling morally superior while pushing a change that most voters (sensibly) saw was pointless window dressing.</p><p>Now, when these same lawyers see their incomes threatened by the abolition of 'QC' they are suddenly in favor of archaic titles.</p><p>Here's a tip, lets get rid of the whole SC/QC thing together, and let the market use common sense in who is a good lawyer.</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>I mostly agree with Rod. But really, who cares. Make the postnominals interchangeable but make it uniform for all states. </p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>We could still have QCs Joe. They could be given the title at Mardi Gras each year. The drag queens at Mardi Gras are far more entertaining than our "beloved monarch", and I suspect, a lot more well regarded. Yes, the proposal is ridiculous, but only as ridiculous as the necessity to have archaic titles themselves. Some of the best legal work I have witnessed as been done by non title-holders, and some of the worst, by title-holders. Yes, it may help people "compete" for money, but it is not a guarantee on quality, as Spiny Norman pointed out. This whole title is about as useful as the slogans politicians use - and from the last few weeks of Australian politics (NT, QLD, CTH) - we can see how much the public like slogans.</p>
    0
    • Avatar
      You're a charmer. Did you take an oath to The Queen or do oaths mean nothing to you.
      0
  • Avatar
    <p>I agree that the nomenclature QC is an anachronism in modern Australia but I suspect it does help Australian counsel to compete in Asia with English QC's ,for example in Hong Kong and Singapore .Some English QC's have branch Chambers in those cities.There's nothing in a name if it helps to bring in the work.What happens ,God forbid, if Tony Abbott does not ultimately get his way and Australia becomes a Republic-back to SC's again?</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    Mervyn in the Mist Thursday, 29 January 2015
    <p>And I suppose you have a strong opinion on Knights and Dames as well?</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Nothing beats performance. </p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Even the ones promoting it??</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>The comment is devoid of logic. Both would be appointed on the same criteria. I suppose it will help to easily identify the rusted on Monarchists......</p>
    0
  • Avatar
    <p>Last QC I briefed here in Qld was as weak as water and charged handsomely for going through the motions. Out here in the burbs most QCs or SCs are overpriced . I prefer an experienced barrister (although I will give young up and comings a go for the right case) who is lean (quite literally- overweight barristers are a sign of complacent long lunch lets settle this thing as opposed to being ready will and able to scrap) , flexible on fees and paid in 7 days. Most of all-must read the brief before conference/trial. That last one seems to be a bit of a deal killer for many barristers, both senior and junior it would seem. Call themselves what they want- the letters mean nil to me. I judge on performance- not counsel who expect their "fearsome" reputations to precede them. No disrespect to any posters who I do not know - just sharing my 2 cents on the relevancy of the QC/SC title to my reality as a suburban solicitor.</p>
    1
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member today
Got a tip for us?
If you have any news tips or stories to share, feel free to send them our way.
Momentum Media Logo
Most Innovative Company