It is stated that 'Senior Counsel are Singapore's equivalent of the Queen's Counsel in the British legal system and are often those with the highest standing in the profession, an extensive knowledge of the law and outstanding ability as advocates'.

I note that one of the appointees was admitted to the Bar in 1997 while another is a professor in the National University of Singapore law faculty (although recently also appointed a district judge of the Subordinate Courts to hear appeals). This caused me to reflect on the appropriateness of the title 'Senior Counsel'.

Traditionally, the word 'Counsel' has been reserved for advocates or litigators. In Britain, they were appointed from the Bar, although I believe more recently, solicitors who have Higher Courts rights of audience (and who frequently litigate in those courts) have been accorded that status. Indeed, in the General Guidance For Applicants For Queen's Counsel, it is stated, among other things, that with one exception, the selection panel will consider only examples drawn from the applicant's professional practice as an advocate and not work done in any other capacity, including sitting as a judge or arbitrator.

That said, it is apparent to me that a significant prerequisite of an applicant for Queen's Counsel is that he should have substantial experience and a sterling reputation as an advocate. Likewise, it was (and I imagine, still is) the tradition of the English Bar that only senior barristers (and perhaps solicitors) would be considered for appointment as Queen's Counsel.

In this regard, I believe in Singapore, lawyers are categorised as 'senior' only when they have practised for 12 years or more from the date they were admitted to the Singapore Bar. With regard to the recent appointments, one might conclude that an applicant need be neither 'senior' nor a 'counsel' to be appointed a Senior Counsel (assuming the other criteria are met).

Tongel Yeo