I am grateful to the Gazette for providing me with an opportunity to write directly to solicitors about judicial office.

There is a considerable public interest in the availability of high-quality candidates for judicial appointment, from whichever branch of the legal profession they may come.

There are well over 100,000 solicitors in practice. Many of them are men and women of wisdom, distinction and experience. Some of them would undoubtedly make judges of formidable quality, capable of sitting in every area of jurisdiction.

At a recent conference held at the offices of Clifford Chance, entitled ‘A Judiciary for the 21st Century’, I made a number of observations which I want to repeat. It is surprising that solicitors, who have been eligible for judicial appointment for so many years, have only come forward for selection as a slow trickle of candidates. This is most surprising when I remember that, when solicitors first became eligible for appointment as recorders, it was regarded as a compliment to the firm, and a contribution by the firm to the administration of justice generally, when they were appointed.

How is it that there has been a change? Is there something in the partnership arrangements? Or the fee-earning? How can we encourage solicitors to give serious consideration to a possible judicial career? How can solicitors give encouragement to other solicitors?

Solicitors have never been in a better position to apply successfully for appointment as judges, and still the numbers of those putting themselves forward for appointment is, in relative terms, minimal. Parts of the process may discourage them. If so, they should, of course, be improved. But I venture to suggest that the absence of encouragement to those with a possible interest of judicial appointment to see a judicial career as part of a rewarding career in the law is largely responsible. Unless encouragement is given to young solicitors to think about the possibility of a judicial career, and arrangements are made within the profession – and indeed within the firms of solicitors – to permit them to do so, our chances of obtaining a fully diverse judiciary will be significantly reduced.

The qualities required of judges are complex and formidable, but two particular features need attention. Judges must be able to make decisions. Anyone can see that there are possible solutions and different ways to address a problem. The judge is faced with having to produce the decision, and decisions can be profoundly unpleasant and have very serious consequences for others. Judges also require moral courage. That is not only the ability to make a decision, but to make decisions that will be unpopular, whether with politicians, or the media, or indeed the public. Most important of all, judges must uphold the right to equal and fair treatment before the law of those who are unpopular at any given time, indeed particularly those who for whatever reason happen to be unpopular.

These qualities cannot possibly be regarded as the preserve of any one part of the legal profession, and irrespective of gender, colour, creed or social background, many solicitors have them.

I suspect that one possible barrier to solicitors applying for, or even considering, judicial office can be encompassed in the continuing perception that barristers may become judges, but solicitors do not. This thinking is out of date. I believe that there are more formidable obstacles, and of these perhaps the most important is the broad requirement that, before any individual can become a full-time judge, he or she must take on part-time judicial responsibilities. This inevitably means time away from practice.

Part-time sitting is an essential requirement of the process. Whether in a court or tribunal, or indeed in any area of responsibility for making decisions of a judicial nature, part-time sitting informs the individual concerned of the realities of judicial responsibility. Judicial office does not suit everyone. The process also informs those responsible for the appointment of full-time judges of the identity of those lawyers (whatever their professional background) who are most suitable for appointment. It is no more appropriate for senior solicitors in leading firms to be exempt from these processes than it is for successful members of the bar to assume that successful practise in the profession is, in itself, enough to demonstrate judicial quality.

There are ample opportunities for those with an interest in judicial work to dip a toe in the water, to shadow a full-time judge or to seek part-time appointment on a fee-paid basis. Of course, I recognise that for senior partners there may be a reluctance to allow their younger partners time away from the office to gain judicial experience as part-time judges. But the profession as a whole must recognise that unless the young are given the necessary encouragement and the time made available to them (one way or another) for these purposes, they will not contemplate judicial appointment, and that the administration of justice overall and the interests of achieving a diverse judiciary will be damaged. All this is easy for me to say, but I do not speak from a position of self-interest, or the interests of any section of the legal profession. We need a judiciary of the very highest calibre and the wider the net may be cast, the better may be the catch.

I therefore warmly welcome the efforts being made by Paul Marsh and highlight his observation that the number of applications for judicial office received from solicitors is indeed very small when compared with the eligible pool. I do not expect overnight change, but I do very sincerely hope that there will be change, that it will be significant and that it will not be much longer delayed.

Sir Igor Judge is lord chief justice