Deborah Manning
A recent media exchange between Lady Deborah Chambers KC and me was, on the surface, about the KC appointment criteria and the relevance of access-to-justice work by lawyers.
The response from some members of the profession was unexpected. There was open discussion on social media and the exchange was actively followed by colleagues in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.
A number of lawyers also contacted me to say they had been thinking about these questions for years but had not felt there had been space to discuss them openly. It became clear that large sections of the profession have been uneasy for some time about how we think about the rank of KC.
There is a strong sense that this is a subject the profession cares deeply about. That is unsurprising – it is a fundamental and reasonable wish for there to be fair recognition of excellence and endeavour in our work.
Purpose of the rank
It also became clear that several different conversations were being tangled together. One concerns the purpose of the rank itself, and this seems to be the first key question we need to grapple with.
Is KC primarily a market signal, as historically intended – a designation to identify outstanding courtroom advocates in the senior courts? Or is it also a broader professional signal of how the legal profession recognises excellence and leadership?
If it is to be the latter, questions arise about whether the consumer signal remains clear and whether clients can readily identify courtroom expertise when they need it.
A second conversation is about access to justice and whether the profession’s highest forms of recognition should reflect engagement with that issue.
New Zealand has a well-documented and growing access-to-justice problem. Increasing numbers of people cannot afford legal representation, including many who fall outside legal aid eligibility but remain unable to fund litigation privately.
Whatever one’s view on the current KC criteria, the profession’s response to that reality is a matter of legitimate public and professional interest.
A third issue concerns the relationship between professional excellence and professional obligation.
Many lawyers appear comfortable with the idea that senior professional status carries obligations beyond technical competence alone, including contributing to access-to-justice work. The more difficult question is how such contributions should be recognised, structured or measured.
Fairness and transparency
Questions about the appointment process itself were also consistently raised: concerns about fairness, transparency and the role of professional relationships and networks.
Such questions are hardly surprising in a small professional community set within a former British colony, with an espoused egalitarian tradition and historic suspicion of elitism and class. They reflect a concern that systems of professional recognition should maintain public and professional confidence by being as transparent and robust as possible.
The significant volume of responses I received suggests there is a strong appetite within the profession for more reflective and substantive conversation about professional recognition, access to justice and the values that underpin legal practice.
As I see it, the most useful next step is to disentangle the different questions that have been raised, including:
- What is the purpose of the KC rank today?
- Should the rank continue in its current form?
- What should it signal to clients, to the courts and to the profession itself?
- How should the legal profession think about the relationship between excellence, leadership and access to justice?
- How should we recognise excellence? And do the current processes adequately reflect contemporary expectations of fairness, transparency and public confidence?
Please feel free to be in touch if you wish to continue the conversation as these questions continue to be discussed. They should be thought through carefully by us – the profession – and ultimately for the public we serve.
Read also:
- Kings Counsel title should reward courtroom excellence, not community virtue Lady Deborah Chambers KC
- Becoming a King’s Counsel should mean something more than the ability to charge $1500 an hour Deborah Manning
Deborah Manning
Deborah Manning is a barrister practising in refugee and public law and a senior lecturer at AUT Law School
0 Comments