Traditionally, this is the time of year when the window opens for a new round of silk applications. It can be a daunting decision for those considering whether it is the right time for them to apply. We thought this might be a useful moment to reiterate some of the fundamental principles of the process and outline the resources available as you proceed through this exercise.
Solicitor-advocates have been able to gain higher rights of audience since 1990 and to take silk since 1995. We welcome applications from solicitors and, through our outreach programme, are working to break down any perceived barriers in the KC process – to ensure that no applicant feels that silk is somehow ‘not for them’.
The purpose of the KC award is to serve the public interest by offering a fair and transparent means of identifying ‘Excellence in Advocacy’ in the higher courts. The process for appointing KCs, underpinned by the competency framework, was set by the professional bodies in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice.
As a panel, we cannot change the process or the competency framework. That is a job for the Bar Council and Law Society. Our objective is to implement that framework as rigorously and consistently as possible, keeping true to the purpose of the KC award.
The selection process is necessarily thorough and one that we appreciate can feel daunting. We would like to assure you that all aspects of the process are extensively explained on our website. We want all silk applicants to be well-informed. Based on feedback, we have made every effort to clarify what information is needed and even how to prepare for interview.
The initial stage of sifting is conducted on a name-blind basis. Decisions to progress to interview are reached entirely on the evidence provided to us by an applicant’s assessors. It cannot be over-emphasised how reliant we are on this body of evidence, taken as a whole. Later in the process, the interview adds nuance to this evidence. The panel is consistent in its approach. We actively seek honest and clear feedback from assessors, regardless of whether it is positive or critical. It is important to say that while we want an assessor’s view on an applicant’s competence, and whether the case in question is of substance, all views must be supported by evidence. We disregard any other superfluous information, such as age and the year an applicant was admitted.
The panel does not operate quotas. All applicants must demonstrate consistent evidence of excellence, confirmed by their assessors.
There is flex within the system to allow for some pragmatism. For example, it is frequently not possible for all assessors to offer evidence on competency D: diversity action and understanding. This lack of evidence is not a bar to interview, provided that the threshold for the other competencies at that stage is met. We ensure that sufficient time is allocated at interview to cover competency D in more detail, if required. Equally, some practitioners may have fewer than 12 cases or may need to go back further than three years to list 12 cases. This is not a bar to application, although there are risks that a smaller body of evidence or a longer time period does not allow for the best evidence of excellence from assessors.
We are often asked about the difficulty of providing evidence on oral advocacy. Specifically with regard to solicitors, given the nature of the work, it is potentially more difficult to satisfy this competency, as many firms do not expect their solicitors to undertake their own advocacy in the higher courts. The panel are keenly aware that differences in practice and specialisms can mean that some applicants may be unable to provide the same quantity of evidence in oral advocacy. The panel will take this into consideration when making a judgement on competency B overall (written and oral advocacy).
However, the panel does require sufficient evidence, even if the quantity may vary, that there is compelling evidence of consistent excellence across all competencies.
We take our responsibility incredibly seriously and the process is unfailingly rigorous, using the combined wisdom of the assessors and King’s Counsel Appointments’ 11 panel members. Where we have any doubts, we do not make a recommendation. To knowingly compromise on the highest standards of quality would be a disservice to the public and to the professions.
Where to find help
Potential applicants should visit the guidance section of our website. The written guidance, updated every year, has been standard since the competition’s inception. Now we also post informational videos where panel members provide an overview of the process, advise how to prepare for an interview, and discuss common misconceptions. There is also video guidance specifically for solicitor-advocates.
Even if you are some way off applying, I would particularly highlight the ‘preparing to apply for silk’ video. As Dame Anne Rafferty sets out, start a dossier as early as possible and note down how your cases might support each of the competencies, as well as any gaps that you could seek support from those around you to fill. We know from the assessments and through our outreach that there is an extraordinary amount of goodwill, with peers and networks willing to help you.
What’s coming up?
There is more for us to do, and our outreach work will continue throughout 2026. The dates for upcoming events can be found on our website (tinyurl.com/4paf4ruw). If you are the lead for a specialist solicitors’ association or a partner in a law firm, for example, and would like to arrange an information session, email the secretariat at enquiries@kcappointments.org, who would be happy to discuss it with you.
If you are planning to apply in the 2026 competition, we look forward to receiving your application.
Monisha Shah is chair and lay member of the KC Selection Panel. Nicolina Andall is a legal member
No comments yet