I write with reference to the article ‘Excellence comes with experience’ by Lucy Scott-Moncrieff (see [2011] Gazette, 10 March, 10).

Ms Scott-Moncrieff says that ‘the QC appointments system, both now and in the past, is intended to identify excellence in higher court advocacy, which excludes the vast majority of solicitors… Whatever the rights and wrongs of this state of affairs, the scheme should be judged against its stated objectives’.

With all due respect, this premise, on which the attempt to defend the fact that only two solicitors were appointed as QCs is based, is deeply flawed. Why should the scheme be judged merely against its stated objectives, if those stated objectives are patently flawed?

The letters ‘QC’ after the name of a lawyer is regarded by members of the public as a quality mark of excellence as a lawyer; not merely as an indication of excellence as an advocate.

For instance, leading counsel’s opinion is frequently sought, not because the lawyer in question happens to be a good advocate, but because they are an outstanding lawyer.

Why should advocates be singled out for special recognition?

It might perhaps have been true 100 years ago that the best lawyers happened also to be the best advocates. That is now clearly far from the truth.

The increased complexity of the law as it has developed in the intervening century, and the growth of the solicitors’ profession, has resulted in a vast amount of high-quality legal work being carried out by lawyers who are not advocates and are usually solicitors.

The best lawyers – whether judged in terms of the quality of the legal work or in terms of client satisfaction or contribution to society – are now largely solicitors.

Furthermore, the article does not mention the fact that the lawyer and judge members of the QC selection panel, in contrast to the lay members, do not appear to have been appointed after an open competition.

The present system of QC selection is as outmoded as the wearing of 18th century horsehair wigs and silk stockings.

It is high time to consign it to the dustbin of history, rather than attempt to defend a system which does little more than bolster the privileged position of a small number of barristers.

The QC quality mark should be awarded on the basis of excellence as a lawyer, measured by objective criteria relating to quality of legal work, client satisfaction and contribution to society, with selection carried out by a panel appointed solely on the basis of open competition.

Ashok Ghosh, Partner, McClure Naismith, London EC4