Solicitors expect the number of solicitor-advocate Queen's Counsel (QCs) to more than double this year after the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, announced last week that he has handed the task of candidate selection to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

Philip Reed, committee member of the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) and a partner at City firm Norton Rose, said the new system under which the two professional bodies will put forward a single list of candidates - through a selection process they will devise - was a 'fantastic' opportunity.

He said: 'I would expect the number of solicitor-advocate QCs to at least double this year, and ultimately there may be equal numbers of barrister and solicitor QCs.'

SAHCA chairman Mark Clough added: 'This should enable solicitors to achieve a par with the bar in terms of the percentage of applications that are successful.'

The Lord Chancellor will retain a power of veto over the list of names, but he said he hoped he would never have to use it.

The reform could lead to a clash between the two professional bodies as the Law Society confirmed this week that it would be seeking to increase significantly the number of solicitor QCs.

Lord Falconer said that he would not set limits on the number of QCs to be appointed under the system, but added that he was unlikely to accept a list of names if the number was huge.

He said he would expect to see an increase in the number of solicitor QCs, as solicitors have only been eligible for the kitemark since 1996.

The new selection process, which should reflect merit and achieve diversity, must be in place to accept applications in October.

The two professional bodies are also charged with finding a means of assessing the continued quality of QCs appointed under the scheme.

The Queen's Counsel name remains in place but will be the subject of a wider market review in 2006/7.

This review will also consider widening the accolade to skills other than advocacy.

Law Society President Peter Williamson said the Society had long argued for an independent, fair and objective system with periodic validation, but it was disappointed that the QC title was to be retained.

See Editorial [2004] Gazette,4 June, page 12.

Rachel Rothwell