Male, Oxbridge-educated barristers at London chambers are still by far the most likely to become QCs despite major reforms to the appointments system, a report by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has found.
The old, “tap on the shoulder” soundings system for appointing QCs was swept away in 2004 and replaced by an independent appointments panel.
Diversity has not improved, however, according to research by Michael Blackwell, assistant professor of law at the LSE.
He conducted a statistical analysis of the careers of 11,453 barristers in 138 chambers between 1981 and 2011 to assess the pre- and post- reform appointment system.
He claims that women are still less likely to be appointed than their male equivalents, and the advantages of being Oxbridge-educated and London-based have become even more entrenched.
In the first academic study of the reformed QC appointments system, Dr Blackwell argues for serious policy debate about abolishing QC status since its existence does not appear to be in the interests of consumers or of justice.
“First, the overwhelming majority of High Court judges are appointed from the pool of practising Queen’s Counsel,” he says.
“Thus fewer women becoming QCs effectively impedes progress towards greater judicial diversity: and in doing so brings into question the legitimacy of the judiciary. Second, the status is justified as a ‘kitemark’ of quality for the consumers of legal services, so if it is awarded on the basis of factors that are irrelevant to ability as a lawyer (such as gender) then this undermines the stated reason for its continued existence.”
The likelihood of becoming a QC is also highly contingent on the chambers of which barristers are members.
