Question: In which year did this English lawyer and judge become a King's Counsel who reaffirmed Solle v Butcher?

Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not always extend to offenses that are closely related to those where the right has been attached.  This decision reaffirmed the Court's holding in "McNeil v. Wisconsin" (1991) by concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the onset of adversarial proceedings. <SEP> Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity.  Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract.  Denning LJ said, <SEP>  Called to the bar in 1923 as a barrister he became a King's Counsel in 1938.  Denning became a judge in 1944 with an appointment to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice and was made a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1948 after less than five years in the High Court.  He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1957 and after five years in the House of Lords returned to the Court of Appeal as Master of the Rolls in 1962, a position he held for twenty years. Alfred Thompson "Tom" Denning, Baron Denning, (23 January 1899 – 5 March 1999) was an English lawyer and judge who has been called "the greatest judge of the century" and "probably the greatest English judge of modern times".  In retirement he wrote several books and continued to offer opinions on the state of the common law through his writing and his position in the House of Lords. <SEP> A United States military jury (or "Members", in military parlance) serves a function similar to an American civilian jury, but with several notable differences.  Only a General Court-Martial (which, depending on the offense, may impose any sentence including death and a dishonorable discharge) or Special Court-Martial (which, depending on the offense, can impose a sentence up to one year in confinement and a bad-conduct discharge) includes members.  There are no members in a trial by Summary Court-Martial (which, depending on the offense, can impose a sentence up to 30 days in confinement).  If the accused at a general court-martial or special court-martial chooses to be tried by members rather than by a military judge alone, then the members are responsible for both rendering a verdict and a sentence should the accused be found guilty of the charges.  The charges are brought forward by an officer called a "convening authority", and the convening authority also personally selects each of the members who will try the accused.  The charges which have been levied by the convening authority are prosecuted at courts-martial by Judge Advocates called "trial counsel".  Accused persons facing general or special courts-martial receive representation free of charge from Judge Advocates acting as defense counsel.  Accused persons may also be represented at general or special courts-martial by civilian attorneys hired at their own expense.  While not required by Congressional law, service policy provides that many military accused receive the benefit of representation from a Judge Advocate defense counsel free of charge at summary courts-martial as well.