It is a testament to the cooperative approach shown by the Law Society and the hard work of commissioners and staff at the Judicial Appointments Commission that the Society now has confidence in the openness and fairness of our selection process.

In spirit and in practice we have worked hard to be scrupulously fair to all candidates from all backgrounds and branches of the profession. I know too that individual solicitors’ confidence and awareness are growing as applications rise. It was not always so. Before the JAC there were concerns about the transparency of the Lord Chancellor’s Department and later Department for Constitutional Affairs in making judicial appointments through ‘secret soundings’; and a widespread perception that only barristers received ‘the tap on the shoulder’ to be a judge. The Law Society would have no part in the process, believing it to be a waste of their and their members’ time. I am glad that is no longer the case.

We are about to publish a 10-year analysis of solicitor appointments, agreed with the Ministry of Justice. It shows that solicitors are performing better under the JAC at entry- and middle-level positions, setting an excellent base for future progress. I know some feel progress is not fast enough, but the truth is that there are no silver bullets.

Before we were set up, the prevailing view was that an open selection process on its own could create a diverse judiciary within a few short years. But an open selection system is only part of the answer. Most importantly, there is now a mutual recognition between the JAC and the Society that there are barriers to judicial appointment beyond the control of any single body. However, by working together we can make progress.

I have valued enormously the engagement of successive presidents of the Society in our work and their active participation in the JAC’s Diversity Forum. Constructive – and sometimes frank – dialogue has helped to identify issues and further effective approaches to deal with them. One such example is our use of ‘qualifying tests’ to shortlist candidates for most exercises below senior circuit judge. This is a more objective system than paper sifts of application forms as there is less reliance on references. The tests are anonymous and every candidate has an equal chance to show their abilities.

The Law Society, together with the Bar Council and the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX), has worked with us to develop these tests and ‘equality proof’ all selection exercise materials – both for qualifying tests and selection day role plays. The Society felt role plays could potentially disadvantage solicitors who lacked court experience. To address this we worked with them on a role play video to give further insight into what was expected – and it remains a popular section on both our websites.

Outreach has been an area of particular success. Again, we listened to the Society, which asked that we run specific events for solicitors that addressed their particular needs. Together we now run events all over the country. Demand is high and satisfaction levels remain consistently above 95%.

There is still work to do. For example, in encouraging solicitors’ firms to recognise the positive benefits of judicial appointment; enhancing both their own reputation and the services they provide to their clients. Again, we have worked with the Society to reach out to law firms to change attitudes.

Many of you will be aware that the end-to-end appointments process is under review by the Ministry of Justice. After four years of operation this is timely and offers a chance to assess objectively, on the basis of accurate evidence, what has been achieved and where improvements across the system can be made. There is always room for improvement. I have no doubt that further refinements are possible.

It would, however, be a retrograde step if the government reverted back to a system which was less independent, both of the executive and the judiciary, compromising the current openness and transparency, and which did not have the confidence of the legal profession. As I sign off, I would like to thank the Society and all the successive presidents I have worked with for being such constructive and informed friends.