King’s Counsel title scrapped as Upper House MPs passed draft laws to only allow Senior Counsel

A centuries-old tradition has been discarded after parliament passes a controversial reform.

The centuries old royal title bestowed on senior South Australian “silk” lawyers has been scrapped after parliament ignored legal fury to pass controversial reforms.

In fiery scenes on Tuesday, Attorney-General Kyam Maher won his fight to cancel King’s Counsel titles for eminent court-based barristers despite a fierce industry backlash.

After fast-tracking the laws into the Legislative Council, Upper House MPs late on Tuesday passed draft laws to only allow Senior Counsel.

Legislation, which top lawyers, some sections of the judiciary, Bar Association and Law Society vehemently opposed, passed 11 votes to seven with state government support and help of the Greens and SA-Best politician Connie Bonaros.

The plans are expected to pass the House of Assembly shortly before the Executive Council passes them into law.

Mr Maher, who said it was not an issue of “great importance” as an Opposition MP when the Liberals voted to reinstate the “post nominals” in 2020, defended his push to “modernise language”.

Senior barristers who already hold a KC title can keep it, which was first introduced in British law in the 1500s, but the reforms will be imposed on any new “silks”.

Premier Peter Malinauskas, who flew out to the US earlier on Tuesday, said he supported the reforms, which Cabinet had also signed off its support of.

The reforms had sparked a “raging bushfire” of anger from the legal profession, sources said.

The title is used in Victoria, Queensland, WA and by the Commonwealth. It was scrapped in NSW in 1993.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, as did his colleagues, supported the changes but did not seek them as he said SCs were appointed out of public interest and not to “exploit” clients.

During heated debate in parliament, independent MP Frank Pangallo, suggested legal fury was so great that some were considering lodging a “vote of no confidence” in the “socialist” Chief Justice.

He described the reforms as “shameful” as he read various comments from Advertiser articles attacking Mr Maher that “paint a vivid picture of public disillusionment”.

“This legislation not only disregards tradition but also demonstrates a concerning lack of transparency, accountability and observance to the opposition of both the legal profession and the broader public,” he said.

Parliament heard government officials believed the reforms were about removing outdated Monarchy titles.

The Opposition’s leader of the Upper House, Nicola Centofanti, noted an Advertiser poll that showed almost three quarters of more than 2500 votes were against the reforms.

She said Mr Maher said in 2020 that it was “our contention that, given the things that we have to deal with at the moment, this issue is not of that great an importance”.

“I suggest that the Attorney-General and his government might want to heed his own advice on this issue and focus on other more pressing matters,” she said.

But Greens MLC, Robert Simms, backed the reforms.

“I think it does send the wrong message when we have these anachronistic titles from a bygone era,” he said.

Mr Maher, who said he had “very little” communication with the Chief Justice since the row publicly exploded, refused to disclose details about a letter he received from angry barristers but said he had a mixed response.

Originally published as King’s Counsel title scrapped as Upper House MPs passed draft laws to only allow Senior Counsel