ANOTHER FINE MESH

Jan 09, 2012 Features / Columnists, Tony Deyal column

---

“If she wanted silk so badly she should have gone to Victoria’s Secret!” This is just one of the comments which followed the announcement that the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago (TNT) had been made a Senior Counsel (SC) by the President of the Republic of TNT acting on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who acted on the recommendation of the Attorney General (AG) who also got “silk”.
There is speculation about how that process transpired between the PM and the AG.  Was her name on the initial list that he put forward and, if so, was it to ensure that his name was not crossed out and his suggestions were accepted?  Did the PM ask for her name to be included and, as an afterthought, sought to “salt” the mine by putting in some 24-carat nuggets to justify her own selection?
Because also bound in the same silken threads are the Chief Justice of the country, an Appeals Court Judge and the Director of Public Prosecutions.  Although TNT no longer has “Solicitors” with a capital “S” and everyone is now an Attorney (some instructing and some obstructing), the Government still retains the post of “Solicitor General” and the holder of that post was also honoured by “silk”.
A few lawyers also found themselves in the mix albeit peripherally and many who were considered deserving found themselves left out.  Since no explanations were given either for the selections or rejections, members of the public (to use a legal term) have “adduced” their own reasons and the President and Government have a deuce of a time trying to justify their actions.
As one newspaper said, “Since the 16 appointments on December 30, there have been questions raised as to the propriety of the entire system of attaining Silk and calls for a more transparent approach to bestowing the title. Questions have also been raised over the role of the Prime Minister bestowing the title on herself seeing that she is the office-holder who recommends the appointments.”
Immediately after the news broke, several legal luminaries (shimmering in silk) had their say.  Many did not cotton to the granting of “silk” to Judges and to lawyers who had not done the hard yards in the court.   Karl Hudson-Phillips, a former AG, has no problem with silk for the AG but described the acceptance of silk by the Chief Justice and another judge as “a grave matter and a serious contradiction for a judge to request or accept Silk if offered… It flies in the face of the hallowed principle of the Separation of Powers.
It also compromises the perception of both the Judiciary and the Bar.”  Former Chief Justice of TNT and President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Michael de La Bastide, supported Hudson-Phillip.  In his view, awarding “silk” to two sitting members of the judiciary is an aberration with the potential to cause much embarrassment among Commonwealth counterparts and provide a possible source of amusement over what is “an obvious gaffe”.
According to Mr. Hudson-Phillips, “Historically it has always been the advocates who impacted and shaped not only the public perception of the legal profession but often the course of public events. For this they were recognised in a particular way by the Monarch – both Kings and Queens… by the 19th century the office of His/Her Majesty’s Counsel was firmly established.
It was an honorific title given in the name of the sovereign by Letters Patent to distinguished advocates (never solicitors) which carried considerable prestige and privileges but also certain obligations. None other than distinguished advocates were ever given the title.”  However, there is more to being a Queen’s or Senior Counsel than prestige, wearing a different type of coat or carrying a red bag.
This is why we who remember Frankie Avalon’s “Bobby-Sox To Stockings” hit of the Sixties about young girls growing up and changing from bobby-sox to stockings and trading in their baby toys for boys, appreciate the relevance of the couplet, “You can bet that the change/ Is more than from cotton to silk.”
The real deal is that SCs are allowed to charge several times the fee that non-SCs (or “Juniors”) charge.  One thing that everyone in TNT knows, regardless of political affiliation, is that when you reach the stage where you have to hire an SC you and your family will have to pay through your nose and every other orifice.
My cynical friends had their say.  “Every cloud has a silver ‘linen’, even a silk cloud,” one who knows my love of puns, said.  “The bad news is that the PM gave herself silk. The good news is that she has seen the writing on the wall and is preparing for her imminent departure from office and has to go back to her law practice, which was not much in the first place.
Clearly the writing is on the wall for her but at least she can earn big money in addition to her pension.”  Similar harsh comments have been made about judges and senior lawyers like the DPP returning to private practice and what an SC would mean to their business and wealth-amassing prospects.
It is clear that the entire situation was mishandled and that there must be a process that is objective and transparent.  In Britain, lawyers who feel they deserve silk apply and a selection is made by an independent panel.  However, I feel sorry for the two judges caught up in what is perceived as the “politricks” of a “Carnation” Government (one in which public confidence has totally evaporated).
As another friend said, “The whole sequence of events is stranger than strange” and reminded me of an old joke.  A former politician and Senior Counsel named Strange died, and his friend asked the tombstone maker to inscribe on his tombstone, “Here lies Strange, a politician, a Senior Counsel and an honest man.”
The tombstone maker gravely insisted that such an inscription would be confusing. Passersby would tend to think that three men were buried under the stone.  He suggested an alternative.  He would write, “Here lies a man who was a politician, a Senior Counsel and an honest man.” That way, whoever walks by the tombstone and reads it would be sure to remark: “That’s Strange!”
*Tony Deyal was last seen saying that until recently the answer to the riddle “What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a crooked lawyer?” was “Chelsea Clinton”.  However, the riddle has been criticised on the grounds that “bad politician” and “crooked lawyer” are both oxymorons.

---

---