To Silk or not to Silk?

But I now have greater admiration for CJ Ivor Archie and Justice Kangaloo for their dignified conduct in the face of hostile criticism, and for returning their Silk with a mere shrug of the shoulder and to extricate the judiciary from a distasteful controversy. The spectacle of a judge, like an errant child holding on to his teddy bear, would have caused irreparable harm to our Judiciary.

But to Silk or not to Silk? Though I am a little weary of perpetually blaming our colonial past, I see merit in maintaining it, but let it be administered by a non-political body. We have premium gasoline — and premium lawyers; both come at a higher price, but neither Kamla nor Patrick should have any input into the “branding” of lawyers. The market will take care of that and pre-mature Silks will not attract anymore clients.

Different to the UK practice, advocate lawyers and instructing solicitors in the Caribbean are now merged into “attorneys-at-law”. Should our legal fraternity choose to extend Silk beyond advocates as is the UK practice I see nothing wrong in that — but this must be a deliberate decision and clearly enunciated. The premium brand will thus be extended to attorneys in all legal fields to recognise excellence in whatever area. But let it be recognised that in the public eyes — this could be “watering down the brandy” — a phrase I associate with the late and former CJ Isaac Hyatali.

QCs/SCs in Trinidad charge higher fees than their UK counterparts. Additionally, their junior is paid two-thirds of his senior’s fees, a custom which often makes justice inaccessible to many people in TT. As we glibly talk about democracy, justice and equity we need to consider the role of our attorneys, silken or otherwise, in nation building. I understand that good silk in the UK does not necessarily cost an arm and a leg. Could it be supply and demand at work? Perhaps we need more good silk in TT to reduce court house costs.

Michael J Williams

via e-mail