Elephant stamps for best in class … The silk snafu … Multiple winners from the same chambers … Secret process for silk selection … Smoke and mirrors … Inside track at the Bar ‘n’ Grill 

This year 25 got through the senior counsel hoops – out of 107 applicants, a “pass” rate of 23%. 

Forbes Chambers did notably well, with five new appointments, making 20% of the total number of new silks. 

Serendipitously, those are the same chambers as the outgoing president of the bar association, Gabrielle Bashir. 

Another four fresh silks emerged from Banco Chambers, home to the senior vice-president of the bar, Dr Ruth Higgins. 

That’s 36% percent of the winners from the two chambers of the two most senior elected officials of the guild – both of whom are on the silk selection committee. 

This could be sheer coincidence, but that has not stopped tut-tutting up and down the Street of Shame, along with mentions in the Sunday Smellograph, and by CJ Taco Bell himself.

For whatever reason, chambers with a heavy top soil of silks are regarded as more prestigious and likely to attract more customers. 

We asked Ms Bashir and Dr Higgins what role they played in the selection process and whether they recused themselves when it came to weighing the merits of colleagues from their own chambers.

It appears not, but through the bar’s PR man, replete with the expected flannel, they said: 

“Each applicant is considered in his or her own right in accordance with the protocol and in particular, the essential criteria. The fact that an applicant is a member of a particular floor does not, and must not, count either in favour of, or against, his or her application.” 

With so much in life, it’s difficult to get the optics right.

Complaints persist from the Salon de Refusés about the selection process – with allegations about unfairness, lack of transparency and natural justice. Complainants we’ve spoken to request anonymity for fear of cruelling the pitch for next time.

It’s the kiss of death to be a “shop soiled” applicant – i.e. repeatedly knocked back. Those who have hit the cutting room floor claim that popularity is regarded as more valuable than experience. 

Some have found that their referees are not consulted and the follow-up interview is generally a pro-forma, unhappy affair without much light being shed – akin to the headmistress telling a rather dim 12 year old to pull up their socks. 

In one case we know of, letters of support from former High Court judges went nowhere with the selectors.  

Others have pointed out that the role of the judiciary in the process is inappropriate, that this administrative work is incompatible with the judicial function, and it would be better if the court did not have its finger in the pie. 

David Smallbone, an unsuccessful applicant in previous years, has asked the Australian Information Commissioner to investigate privacy issues surrounding the comments supplied by other lawyers and judges and how the bar manages the information it collects. 

Those who tick the box requesting that third-party comments be accessible find they get very few, if any, comments at all. 

No one is comfortable that their views could be shared with the people who are hopeful of support. 

Smallbone has on two occasions sued the Bar Association. 

The Brits have quite a different silk selection process, which involves far less smoke and mirrors. The Kings Counsel selectors are quite separate from the Bar Council of E & W and act “in the service of the public interest”. 

There are 11 paid members on the panel, comprising as many lay people as lawyers, supported by a full-time secretariat of four. 

KCs can be doled out to eminent solicitors as well as honorary gongs for worthies, even journalists e.g. Joshua Rozenberg KC. The process is described as a “competition” with contenders nominated to apply. Those who survive the initial round are interviewed by at least two selectors who grade the competitors. The grades are assessed by the full panel. 

Written feedback is provided to all unsuccessful candidates. Ultimately, the list of successful applicants goes to the Lord Chancellor and then to the King for his thumbprint.

The process is explained here. 

There are no baubles for American attorneys, although one of the lawyer magazines has a list of “Super Lawyers”.