THE great debate over whether top barristers should be called Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel has spread to Adelaide, with the State Government calling for “calm” opinions.

Attorney-General John Rau on Thursday revealed he had discussed the issue — subject of bitter infighting in NSW — at the meeting of State and Territory Attorneys-General.

Debate over the SC system revolves around claims clients can be deceived into paying more to hire so-called “senior counsel”, in terms of years’ experience, who are not formally SCs.

“Legal consumers need to have consistency and transparency across the country, so as to be able to compare like service providers,” Mr Rau said.

“I think most people would recognise a QC as being a senior lawyer appointed to a prestigious position, (but) many struggle to instantly recognise SC in the same way.”

“There is much to be said for a harmonised national framework ... with one half of the national profession now appointing QCs, this is a real issue.”

Mr Rau’s announcement stands in contrast with his position earlier this year, when The Advertiser sought comment on the debate.

At that time, Mr Rau said there were no plans to consider changing the current system, which came into operation in 2008.

Prior to 2008, barristers could seek to become Queen’s Counsel — a position of prestige and recognition of excellence that carried the respect of peers and high salaries.

The former Rann Government was often critical of the designation, questioning its value to consumers while dubbing some QCs residents of Adelaide’s “leafy green suburbs”.

In 2006, State Cabinet rejected a recommendation to appoint barrister David Edwardson — a critic of Mr Rann’s government — a QC.

Mr Edwardson’s appointment was eventually approved following a meeting between then-Chief Justice John Doyle and Mr Rann.

That same year, top silk Michael Abbott, QC, called for the system to be abolished to “end political interference” in appointments.

In 2008, SA formally adopted the practice of appointing barristers SC, or Senior Counsel — one of the first to be honoured was Chris Kourakis, now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Interstate, the debate over SC versus QC has seen bitter battles within the highest echelons of the legal profession.

The NSW Bar Association was rocked by infighting which allegedly sought to have those opposed to the reintroduction of QC ousted from the Bar Council.

In 2013, the Queensland government announced barristers would be able to chose between SC or QC upon their appointment — Victoria followed its lead in 2014.

Victoria has since announced it will consider a recommendation that existing SCs be allowed to change their title to QC.

On Thursday, Mr Rau said he was not proposing change but calling for “calm reflection” on whether “the change in 2008 needs to be revisited”.

“There are our state’s top lawyers and it is relevant that this prestigious appointment is easily recognisable, both within Australia and overseas,” he said.

SA Bar Association president Andrew Harris, QC, said he and his membership welcomed “a mature discussion” on the matter.

“The Association does not have a position, one way or the other, but will be pleased to engage in discussion with the Attorney-General on this topic,” he said.

“It’s fair to say there are strongly-held views of both sides of this debate.

“I’ve personally been concerned, for some time, by the use of titles such as ‘special’ or ‘senior’ counsel by solicitors firms.

“That can create confusion with the postnominal SC, identifying someone of pre-eminence as a barrister.”

Law Society president Rocco Perrotta said the peak body did not currently have a position on the debate.

“It is very much a matter of personal preference,” he said.

“Some barristers are attracted to the longstanding tradition and corresponding prestige of the ‘QC’ title, and there can be a great sense of pride and achievement in sharing a title with the many great advocates who have come before them.

“Others view QC as anachronistic, or may be staunch republicans, and prefer the modern SC postnominal.

“It has also been suggested that SCs may be commercially disadvantaged while there remain QCs in practice.”