A SURVEY in which solicitors were asked to evaluate the performance of Queen's Counsel (QCs) and junior barristers has been criticised by top legal experts for being ''irresponsible'' and ''unscientific''.
The survey, which appears in this month's edition of The New Gazette legal journal, criticises the standards of some QCs and lists other individuals in popularity charts. Michael Thomas QC, for example, was named as ''a top-three choice in over 75 per cent of responses''.
But according to Professor Raymond Wacks, head of Hong Kong University's Law Department, the survey is misleading and could have a detrimental effect on the careers of those not listed.
''What worries me most about it is that they've apparently conducted a survey of solicitors who have ranked barristers in a sort of hit parade, a top-of-the-pops sort of thing. I don't think this is very helpful. If a barrister's name is not there . . .it could be very damaging,'' he said.
''For instance, the list of juniors that solicitors were 'impressed with' contains a very small number of women. Yet I think one third of barristers are women, possibly even more. If the reader can see only three women, one obvious response is that womenare not as good, and that's not right.
''I think it is a bit irresponsible - you are dealing with people's livelihoods. It's so impressionistic, so unscientific. If one conducts a survey like this where you are evaluating people's ability or standing in their profession, then you have to take great care.'' Professor Wacks' chief complaint lay with the survey's methodology. The names of the solicitors and firms questioned were not revealed, nor the questions. The journal said simply that the 21 lawyers questioned ''conduct general commercial litigation in Hong Kong'' and ''come from a variety of backgrounds''.
''People will attach importance to this survey and if [ The New Gazette ] is going to make these claims it should have relied on more scientific methods,'' Professor Wacks said.