Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1542] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 This is I think my third intervention on this part and thus I will be brief. I really want to respond to something the Attorney-General said before the dinner adjournment. He gave the impression which I think is incorrect that large numbers of people are eligible within law firms for the rank of Senior Counsel. I think he fails to understand that the nature of the profession has changed since he and I were law clerks in the early 1980s. When I first joined a law firm in the early 1980s there were very few people who practised as barristers sole—who practised at the independent Bar. In the space of the last 25 years the situation has changed dramatically. There are now far more barristers sole than there have been at any other time in the country’s history and it is the exception rather than the rule for people to practise within law firms. When I first joined the partnership of Bell Gully in Wellington there were 10 litigation partners in the Wellington office. When I left to go to the Bar following all the others who had gone to the Bar there were four litigation partners. 
The nature of the profession has changed dramatically and that is why the chances of anyone being of adequate standard to be appointed as Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel within firms will be few and far between. That is not to say that there are not good people within law firms who should go to the Bar and become eligible to apply to take silk but the reality of the matter is that the profession has changed and what clients value more than anything is the independence that comes from the opinion of a Queen’s Counsel. Sometimes clients desperately need independent legal advice but they will not necessarily obtain it from a partnership that is dependent on that client for large fees; sometimes the partnership itself will want the independence that comes from obtaining an opinion from a Queen’s Counsel. 
So in two respects I am afraid that the Attorney-General got it wrong. The nature of the profession has changed dramatically. The independent Bar—or the separate Bar as some people like to call it—is very much stronger than it was when he and I were law clerks he in Dunedin and I in Wellington. The second point that needs to be made is to emphasise and emphasise again the important role the Queen’s Counsel plays in giving utterly objective independent advice. That independence which is the cornerstone of those who are called to the inner Bar will be compromised if those people are partners within law firms. I say that from experience in both a medium-sized partnership and a large partnership and putting aside questions of competition for the rank. 
As for the suggestion that employed solicitors and barristers within law firms would be eligible for the rank I say quite frankly that that is madness. I cannot think of anyone who would qualify for the rank who is an employed person. It is simply an unacceptable suggestion that further diminishes the independence of the rank. That is all I want to say about clause 105; I hope that the Government reflects on it very closely because these are important matters.