Withdrawing a Title !

   Have you ever wondered why some prominent lawyers have the initials "SC " after their name ?   That stands for "Senior Counsel "and a person so designated is known as a "silk "and is highly sought to provide representation in important legal cases.   Such a highy regarded lawyer usually charges fees well above the average for the rank and file.

In the distant past this was formerly known as "QC "which stood for "Queen's Counsel "and it was awarded by the state government on a very limited basis.  Since 1992 the government has withdrawn from that role and that appelation has been awarded by the NSW Bar Association since 1993.

Now an interesting situation is arising with the holder of an SC having been accused of infamy to the point that it is suggested that the appelation be withdrawn.  Dyson Heydon  had the honour to sit as a justice of the Australian High Court, but an internal enquiry also found him guilty of sexually harassing women junior to him in the legal hierarchy.

This is a charge that has unseated men in power around the world.  The directors of major corporations have caused offenders to stand down and in some cases prosecutions have resulted in prison sentences.  Women who in the past maintained their silence are speaking out and the use of power to force sex on women reliant on a man to grant them progress has gained the ability to destroy reputations.

Perhaps Dyson Heydon is seeing the threat to his nomination as a silk.   He has not renewed his barristers practicing certificate this year and that means he is "forbidden "to practice as a lawyer.  The withdrawal of the SC award is somerthing that if it proceeds would break new ground and illustrates the severity with which sexual misconduct is now regarded.

But perhaps we should rethink the purpose of this title.   It is awarded as a result of exemplerary skill in the courtroom, employing new tactics and new avenues of argument which achieve outstanding results.  That skill is not being questioned when the issue is a social matter concerning the morality of his conduct with women.

There are many lawyers who deserve elevation to SC but who are passed over.  Undoubtedly, had this issue with women arisen before Heydon was selected for this honour it would not have proceeded.  It seems that Heydon's action in not renewing his right to appear in court is self serving.  He may be hoping his withdrawal will be sufficient to maintain those letters that proclaim the pinnacle of success in the legal profession.