The Law Society has claimed the “shocking imbalance” in the appointing of barristers rather than solicitors as judges of the High and Supreme Courts is having a negative effect on the public interest.
Ken Murphy, the director general of the society which is the representative body for solicitors, said the system of selecting judges was “prejudiced” against solicitor candidates in favour of barristers.
“Solicitors have a more diverse set of relevant legal skills, together with wider experience of law and of life,” he added. “This prejudice against solicitor candidates for senior judicial office is a relic of the past that operates against the public interest,”
Judges are appointed by the Government after the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board identifies potential candidates and informs the Government of their suitability for appointment to judicial office. An applicant for the Supreme or High Court benches must be a practising barrister or solicitor with at least 12 years experience.
According to the board’s 2012 annual report, it met on April 16th that year and considered 19 applications for three positions to the High Court. Of the applicants, four were solicitors while the remaining 15 were senior counsel.
Solicitors have been eligible for appointment as judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court since the enactment of the Courts and Court Officers Act in 2002.
Mr Murphy said in a statement last night that “just four” of the 49 judges appointed to those courts since then had been solicitors.
“In other words, 80 per cent of the legal profession has produced just 8 per cent of the senior judicial appointments in the last 12 years,” he said.
“This is not even the slightest criticism of the highly able barristers who have been appointed to the High Court bench – but why have equally well-qualified and skilled solicitors been overlooked?
“There is a genuine public interest at stake here,” Mr Murphy added. “The JAAB has been approving solicitor candidates and passing their names to Government for consideration.
“The problem seems to arise primarily at Government level, despite the fact that successive governments have recognised that the public would benefit from appointing High Court and Supreme Court judges from a wider pool of talent.”
Last month, the Irish Council of Civil Liberties called for the abolition of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board as well as the instigation of a “diversity audit” in the judicial appointments process due to a lack of statistics relating to the diverseness of appointments.
