One of the more prestigious prizes in the legal profession is the award of 'silk' or 'senior counsel'. It used to be reserved for those lawyers who had distinguished themselves at the Bar and whose opinions on legal matters carried real weight both inside and outside the courtroom. ( I remember a story about a well known and very able silk (who is dead now, poor fellow) Tajmool Hosein, who was asked by a client to write a letter on the client's behalf to someone who owed him money. Taj (as he was affectionally known) wrote the letter. The client then approached Taj a few weeks later to say that he had received full satisfation from the debtor. Taj then presented the client with a bill for his services which came to $10,000 (and this was at a time when $10,000 was like a $100,000 today).
The clint complained. '$10,000 for a letter that took you only 5 minutes to write?'
Taj had two questions for him :'Did you get your money?' and 'Would you have got it if my name was not on the letter?'
The client then promptly paid the bill.
And that is my whole point. Tajmool was an excellent lawyer with a well deserved reputation. How many of these newly created silks have any kind of reputation?
The truth is that for the longest while the award is not based on merit but on "who you know". The award is based solely on the Prime Minister of the day wishing to reward whoever he/she wants, whether that person is a good, bad or indifferent lawyer. Also, we have tended to place this award 'before-behind' in that in the old days a good lawyer was invited to take silk. Now, if you want silk you have to apply, and provided that you are not on bad terms with the Prime Minister of the day you will probably get it. I know a number of lawyers who deserve the award but who will never apply. As a result, they'll never get it.
Perhaps it is time that we took a leaf out of the Americans' anti Imperialist playbook and abolished this award. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned to let a lawyer's reputation stand or fall on its own merits rather than a politician's opinion?
No comments:
Post a Comment