Professor Graham Zellick QC considers the use of the designation QC by judges
- Explores whether High Court judges, both retired and sitting, should use ‘QC’ in their titles.
In a recent article I considered the honorific ‘The Honourable’ concluding that High Court judges are not entitled to use it except when coupled with their judicial titles (How ‘Honourable’ are High Court judges? NLJ, 27 July 2018, p 17). In this article, I consider the post-nominals ‘QC’ for High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges. Nearly all judges of these courts are Queen’s Counsel when first appointed to the Bench. Yet they do not append the letters QC to their names, whether when using their judicial or their personal titles, and it is extremely rare, and widely considered to be incorrect, for them to do so even after retirement.
Why is this, and is it custom or binding practice? By contrast, Circuit Judges continue to enjoy the designation both in connection with their judicial title and following retirement. How can this difference in practice
