Most barristers greet a new silks round with polite applause and perhaps some quiet envy, but Auckland barrister Warren Pyke has greeted this one with a demand to blow up the system.
Writing in LawNews days after a dozen or so new KCs were still collecting congratulations, Pyke, a member of The Law Association’s Council, says the process is archaic, secretive and unfair to the equally worthy candidates who missed out and will never learn why.
Pyke argues the system of secret soundings, no interviews and pro forma rejection letters fails the natural justice standards lawyers enforce on everyone else.
Fix it, he says, or scrap the rank.
Pyke’s points follows the brouhaha in Australia over the AFR’s reporting on those who sought the Silk Road in that country. The AFR found three NSW barristers had applied 10 times since 2016, and four more 9 times. Respected criminal barrister Gabriel Wendler keeps missing out and doesn’t know why. Pyke has heard of New Zealand candidates applying well over 10 times.
The process involves the NZ Bar Association President canvassing a panel of “senior practitioners” and the Law Society. The Solicitor-General passes those views to the Chief Justice and Attorney-General, who discuss the candidates.
Pyke can’t say whether this happens over muffins and coffee, but if either says no, it’s no. Candidates get no interview and no chance to answer criticism, and the people commenting may be their competitors. Those who miss out get what Pyke calls an obviously pro forma letter.
The Silk ‘brand’ confers a measurable market advantage on some lawyers over others of similar excellence. Handing it out in secret, he argues, sits awkwardly with natural justice.
His model is England and Wales. Since 2004 it has used an independent, lay-chaired selection panel, with competency assessments and interviews, a chance to answer criticism, and constructive feedback for those who miss.
The old system of soundings and sponsorship it replaced was parodied in Rumpole.
He concedes the latest NZ round doesn’t prove clubbiness in outcomes, but that result doesn’t mean connections play no part. Nor does the Royal prerogative put the process beyond scrutiny, as the Miller cases and a 2026 English challenge over a stripped CBE show.
The ultimatum is to create a transparent, fair process, or no rank at all. No other New Zealand profession carries a royal rank, unless you count the tea-and-biscuit merchants holding royal warrants.
For a profession that lectures everyone else on procedural fairness, it is an awkward question: why should its own honours system settle for less?
