Talk:King's Counsel

message: From my understanding of QCs in Australia, the title is still in common use but the article says otherwise. Can anyone offer a citation, or something, to clarify matters? Mattabat 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed? 

message: Perhaps I am missing something, however it looks like most of the page has been cut and pasted from this article here: http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Queens_Counsel.htm and not referenced to them that I can see:
by Noel Cox, Auckland University of Technology  and Professor Peter Spiller, University of Waikato first published [2000] New Zealand Law Journal 371-373 Calanen 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The webpage identified as a possible source is archived here. A copyvio detector report indicates "Violation Possible 72.2% confidence" with our current article, however it only identifies relatively short matching phrases, and in my view our current text is ok. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation 

message: Several times I have come across articles describing how a trial needed to be postponed because one party indicated that they would employ a QC, and the other party needed time to follow suit. Is there a requirement that both parties need a QC, or is a QC considered so much better that otherwise you have no chance? How common is the practice? The article doesn't mention anything about this effect. As someone unfamiliar with the QC concept, I think this would be much more relevant information than, say, the fabric of someone's clothes. Kweetbeter (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect? 

message: The patent of precedence article say that QCs used to have to resign as MPs on appointment. When did this end? Is the background interesting? Cutler 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer, but as I'm sure you know it's not possible to unilaterally resign membership of the UK House of Commons.  There are ways of arranging to become ineligible (Chiltern Hundreds etc), but even these technically depend on the say-so of another person even if in practice such requests are always granted.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resigning as MP 

message: How about a category for QCs and KCs? --Counter-revolutionary 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Quoting one paragraph: 
::"The appointment of Queen's Counsel was suspended in 2003 and it was widely expected that the system would be abolished, although existing QCs were not affected by the suspension. However, a vigorous campaign was mounted in defence of the system, including those who supported it as an independent indication of excellence valued by outsiders who did not have much else to go on, and especially foreign commercial litigants, and those who contended in a letter to The Times in London that it was a means whereby the most able barristers from ethnic minorities could overcome prejudice. The Government's focus then switched from abolition to reform and, in particular, reform of the much-criticised "secret soundings" of Judges and other establishment legal figures upon which the old system was based, which was said to be inappropriate and unfair given the size of the modern profession, a possible source of improper Government patronage (since the final recommendations were made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Government) and discriminatory against part-time workers (especially women) and ethnic minorities."
I'm not going to edit this due to the specialized subject matter, but this paragraph might be improved by dividing it into more than three sentences.  Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure that paragraph is factually inaccurate. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accurate or not, it needs verifiable references. Without them it is at best dubious. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter to the Times is verifiable fact; I have read it myself in the print edition of the paper. I don't think it is available online any more and I don't have access to indices that would allow me to give the references - others will, however. Reference to the same point being made by at least two High Court Judges (Mr Justice Aikens and Mrs Justice Rafferty) can be found at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc007.pdf first paragraph. Another example, from the Association of Asian Women Lawyers, is at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc016.pdf . Unpicking the other elements: (1) It was suspended in 2003, and there was lots of press reporting about the fugure of the system. (2) The campaign against abolition was joined by the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR), at that time Chaired by William Blair QC (brother of the Prime Minister, now a High Court Judge), which produced a report defending the system along the lines in the Wikipedia article (see http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/supremecourt/responses/sc033.pdf ). Another example of the argument is in the submission from the Lord Mayor of London which can be seen here: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc014.pdf (3) The switch in focus from abolition to reform was driven by responses to a government consultation paper which can be seen at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/. Examples of responses to it are still (at 17 Feb 2009) on the government website at e.g. http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc001.pdf http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc117.pdf and hundreds of others (use the same web address but substitute a different three digit combination after /qc for others). I agree that references should be added; but we ought not to delete valuable factual content in the meantime. Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing's been deleted—it is just marked "dubious" until someone can put together the right references.  The Times letter doesn't have to be available online: the date and heading are sufficient. - Pointillist (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  I've added a few more references to my para above; perhaps something can be done with those.  Chelseaboy (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was from Courtenay Griffiths QC in The Times on 3 November 2003 and is referred to on p 41 para 132 of the document here:  http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc199.pdf  Hope this helps.  Chelseaboy (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An online copy of the letter from Courtenay Griffiths QC, Linda Dobbs, and Oba Nsugbee on 3 November 2003 headed "Barristers from ethnic minorities" can be accessed here:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1007444.ece Chelseaboy (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on assembling such great references. It would probably be best if a practitioner re-wrote the paragraph—I'm not a lawyer. - Pointillist (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Sentences (with no citations) 

message: I don't know if this is just an Australian thing or not.  Whenever a QC/SC is mentioned in the media, they always seem to get the postnominal: "Murgatroyd Titfink SC has been appointed a judge of the ... court";  "The alleged bankrobber will be represented by Denzil Blathercombe QC", etc.  Other people with postnominals don't get this treatment.  We never hear "The former Prime Minister Bob Hawke AC announced today ...." or "The Olympic delegation will be led by Dawn Fraser AO MBE".  Why is this distinction made for QC/SCs?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is because it is often relevant for example when the media article says they are representing someone as a lawyer- it indicates they are highly experienced and regarded. Awards like the AC and MBE are however not tied to a specific professional discipline and so don't indicate just from the postnominals, experience or status in a specified area. If you say "QC" after there name, people immediately know they have experience/status in the field of law. But with AC/MBE, you have to dig deeper to find out if they have experience in, for example, the scientific field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.154.33 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Media references to QCs/SCs

message: What happens to a QC when the Queen dies? Do they automatically become KCs? Must they be re-appointed? Do they retain the title QC into the reign of the kIng? Avalon (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it simply changes from QC to KC(or KC to QC) when a new monarch takes over.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.186.35 (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New appointments obviously use the new title when there is a change of monarch, but how about existing ones? This is relevant to articles such as Reginald Manningham-Buller, 1st Viscount Dilhorne - the article describes him as a KC right up until his death in 1980. Surely this isn't right? JRawle (Talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The answer to this question has been confirmed, 14 years later - https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/35475-queens-counsel-to-become-kings-counsel -- Chuq (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of Sovereign

message: Some info on the QC in Canada would be helpful...unfortunately, I don't have the expertise. Any takers? fishhead64 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: I think the Northern Territory ceased appointing QCs in 2007 and thereafter they were styled SC
see SUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.176.63 (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Territory 

message: There are two separate articles claiming that the subject is the youngest ever British QC: Emlyn Hooson, Baron Hooson and Paul McBride.  Not sure which (if either) is correct, and am struggling to come up with reliable sources.  The Lord Hooson article actually claims he is the youngest QC anywhere: that is clearly not correct, as there appears to be an Australian who was made a QC three years younger: The Prism: Tony Morris QC Welcome any input.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like neither of them - Spencer Perceval was made a KC at aged 33 in 1796.  Any other contenders? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of recent examples of recipients in their 30s, so it wouldn't surprise me.  I imagine there is more than one who fits the description. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris Shumiatcher of Saskatchewan, Canada, was appointed KC at the age of 31, which would be earlier than any of the other contenders mentioned in this discussion.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Youngest ever QC

message: The article asserts that nobody who has ever held the title of King's Counsel survives, citing the Guardian obituary of Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, the cited source does not even say that Lord Simon was a KC or QC. The Independent obituary of Lord Simon confirms that he was awarded KC in 1951 (before the Queen's accession), but does not mention whether there are any surviving ex-KCs. It is likely that no KCs appointed in England and Wales survive, this could probably be confirmed. However, it would be difficult to prove that this applies in all jurisdictions that appointed KCs. I will adjust the article accordingly. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone who has held the title of King's Counsel survive? 

message: Barbados and its infinite secrets strike again. Can someone please update this link because the page is no longer active and without an acceptable reference we can't keep it here. In a superficial search I haven't been able to locate anything particularly compelling. 
Happy searching, I suppose? 
India.OHC (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We say "The selection process is secret". That could mean that no one not involved in the process even knows what the process is. Or it could just mean that the process is undertaken in secrecy. We should clarify this. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbados and its Secrets..? 

message: With the accession of her son, all of the thousands of people currently styled QC must be changed to KC. Can we make a bot for it? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look into it after dinner Pi (Talk to me!) 19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as simple as that. Louis Blom-Cooper was a QC and stays a QC. Whereas Suella Braverman was a QC but is now a KC. But we still have Category:English Queen's Counsel but not Category:English King's Counsel. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Elizabeth II 

message: The Bahamas still retains the King’s Council designation. Please add them to the list of commonwealth countries that do. I am dealing with a client’s website where we need to change from QC to KC. ParkersLaw.net for reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5610:B010:306E:9258:B521:1AD6 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bahamas

message: The reference to barristers in the UK wearing black in mourning for Queen Anne seems to be inaccurate. See https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/their-sacrifice-remembered Djewesbury (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mourning for Queen Anne 

message: It would be helpful to have a section on title precidence. For example, if a KC (QC) has other titles, such as MP, CM, CH, DSO, etc. What order should these be presented? Also, does KC surplant other titles when presented after their name? This would appear to be related to order of precedence but would address specifically the order of precedence of titles as they would appear, for example, on a business card. I suspect that a short section would suffice. 
I searched for a more general Wikipedia page to discuss this more generally, but did not find such topic - I searched for "Title precedence" but did not find such page, maybe it exists under another title? (If such topic exists, maybe "Title precedence" could be created as a redirect to that page.)  I did, however, find Style (form of address) which broadly describes the style of addressing folks who hold certain titles. I also found a brief sub-section Suffix_(name)#Ordering, but I think that the issue of how to add such titles (in what order), etc. on a business card, or after someone's name deserves its own Wikipedia article - especially as "rules" as set out by one awarding organization may (and sometimes does) conflict with "rules" set out by another awarding organization.
Enquire (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title precedence