In this series of articles, ‘KC appointments – our approach to the selection process’, my panel colleagues and I will address each of the competencies to offer greater clarity to applicants and assessors. It is worth noting some important points which provide the context to our work as a whole. The KC award is for consistent excellence in advocacy in the law of England and Wales. The competency framework was created by the professional bodies, successive Lord Chancellors and senior judges; its primary objective is to serve the public interest. The diverse panel of legal and lay members is entrusted with applying the framework rigorously and consistently; we rely heavily on evidence-based assessments from assessors. There are no quotas for appointment. In summary, as one of our founding documents states, the process combined with the competency framework ‘serves the public interest by offering a fair and transparent means of identifying excellence in advocacy in the higher courts’.

Competency C is about being a role model and a leader within and for the professions. This competency places a high value on how applicants uphold the standards expected of advocates. It looks for evidence of excellence in how applicants act to secure the confidence of the court, establish productive relationships with judges and fellow advocates involved in the case and build rapport with court officials, legal teams and clients. The panel seeks evidence spanning a number of areas. This includes the way in which the applicant behaves in their professional capacity, leads teams, advises clients, meets commitments and can be relied on to be candid, meticulous, consistent and responsible.

Excellence in Competency C is about setting an example in the way you work with others across the whole landscape that you work within. The panel wants to see and hear evidence of the challenging situations you have faced and what you have learnt from them.

Demonstrating leadership is a key element of this competency. Mentorship, offering development opportunities to junior colleagues, building diverse well-rounded teams, identifying priorities, allocating tasks and accepting ultimate responsibility for the case when leading a team are all good examples of leadership.

However, not all applicants have led teams. The panel is just as interested in evidence of living leadership. Examples of this include taking charge of a difficult situation or moving a case forward when the odds are stacked against it, listening to and motivating others and supporting morale within the wider team and taking key decisions with authority. There are numerous other examples of showing leadership in the courtroom. These include being able to advance an argument that might not be popular, standing up to the judge if required or refusing to make assertions or allegations which are not supported by a proper factual basis.

For Competency C we are seeking evidence that applicants consistently uphold the highest standards of behaviour expected of advocates. We want to know that they can adapt their style depending on, for example, whether they are in front of a judge or handling a vulnerable witness. It is imperative that those applying for silk behave in a polite, respectful and open way not only towards judges, other counsel and professional clients but also with junior members of the wider teams, lay clients and courtroom staff.

In their self-assessment for Competency C and at interview should one be offered, applicants should think more broadly about working with others rather than simply about leading a junior in a particular case.

If you are an assessor we would ask that you think about what leadership you have seen, even if this is outside of being a direct member of the applicant’s team. The Competency Framework provides a guide to the kinds of evidence we would like to see for this competency, but as a judge you might have seen an applicant working with their opponent to ensure the court’s time is used effectively, or perhaps the applicant won your confidence in the way that they conducted themselves during the case.

As a practitioner, as an opponent, co-counsel or leader, tell us about the way in which the applicant interacted with you. Did they face any challenges during the case or take on a particularly knotty issue on behalf of the wider team? Were they meticulous in making a full and frank disclosure wherever appropriate? Did they advance arguments in a way which reflected the perspective of everyone involved in the case? Did they behave in a consistent and open way in their dealings with you?

In the case of client assessors, you are likely to have the most evidence of this competency. How did the applicant interact with the wider team working on the case? Did they take responsibility for the work of the team, delegate appropriately and support others? Did they help you or the lay client focus on the relevant points when deciding on the best course of action? Did you feel that they responded to the needs and circumstances of the case or the client? Did they meet their appointments and commitments, and keep you informed of progress in a timely manner? These are all important things to consider as you provide your evidence.

We hope this article has been a helpful guide as to what you might wish to think about as you are drafting your application or assessments. However, our guidance to applicants and assessors is set out in full each year on the KCA website: kcappointments.org. The KCA secretariat is always happy to assist prospective applicants or assessors on any aspect of the silk process. Please do reach out and email: enquiries@kcappointments.org