Dear Editor,
In 1996, six lawyers were appointed Senior Counsel and elevated to the inner bar. They were Messrs Ralph Ramkarran (now Speaker of the National Assembly), Richard Fields, Charles Ramson (a former Attorney General), Ian Chang (now acting Chief Justice), Moen McDoom and the late Samuel Brotherson. No women were appointed nor were any appointed before. Since their elevation, there have been no further appointments of Senior Counsel in Guyana.
Nine lawyers were appointed Queen’s Counsel in Barbados in 2005 (including Guyanese Mrs Maureen Crane-Scott, then Registrar and now a High Court Judge) and in December 2007, a further eleven lawyers (including three women) joined them at the inner bar. I wish to state quite clearly that I am not suggesting the appointment of women ‘silk’ as a form of affirmative action.
The appointment of Senior Counsel is recognition of professional eminence and standing in the legal profession. The appointment continues to have great significance professionally and such public recognition also serves as an incentive for lawyers to improve and enhance their legal expertise and advocacy skills in order to attain that status, though it has been argued that the ‘criteria’ give undue influence to oral advocacy.
The system of the appointment of ‘silk’ has sometimes been perceived, both here and abroad as rewarding political connections rather than professional merit and community service. It’s not a transparent process and there does not seem to be any criteria, or publicly stated criteria. In other professions, there is not this opaque process. For accountants, doctors, engineers, academics for promotion or specialist accreditation, there are exams or peer review or clear publicly stated criteria. The legal profession alone recognises achievement in the legal profession, not from the Bar Association, but from government or with government involvement.
In the United Kingdom, after the suspension of appointments of Queen’s Counsel, a reformed system emerged where appointees through an open competition would not be chosen by the government but by a nine member panel chaired by a lay person, which would include two barristers, two solicitors, one retired judge and three non-lawyers. The Lord Chancellor therefore no longer makes the appointment. The significance of the institution of silk has not diminished after more than 400 years. For the public, it is a mark of excellence and of a continuing expectation that an individual will consistently perform to the highest. Unless there is some expression of recognized distinction or quality, such as the rank of Senior Counsel, it would be difficult particularly for overseas investors to select counsel to act for them. They are used to relying upon the mark of distinction conferred by the title Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel.
If there will be further appointments of Senior Counsel, it ought to be a much more transparent process, so that the stamp of excellence which is put on those professionals, can be seen to be legitimate.
I am confident that Guyana continues to possess some of the best legal minds in the region and if objective criteria are applied based on excellence, integrity, intellectual rigour and success in court, there are many prime candidates truly deserving of that honour. So like the acting Chancellor and acting Chief Justice, those candidates too must wait.
Yours faithfully,
Dawn A. Holder
