There’s a development unfolding within the practice of advocacy that is not merely concerning — it is profoundly unsettling. We are witnessing the rise of an entire category of lawyers whose principal role is not advocacy, not legal strategy, not even substantive engagement with the case, but simply to act as glorified couriers for filings and briefings headed to Supreme Court Senior Counsel. To imagine this as a harmless administrative evolution would be a grave mistake. It is, in fact, a system that has been carefully constructed — and carefully maintained.

What should trouble any serious observer of the profession is this: these firms function because senior counsel — yes, the seniors themselves — are feeding them the work. For anyone outside this comfortable little ecosystem, let’s be absolutely clear. This is a complete inversion of how the system was designed. The client never belonged to the senior. The senior was meant to be briefed, not to orchestrate the flow of briefs.

Then there is the matter of fees — astronomical in many cases — and the perpetual “unavailability.” These obstacles exist primarily for those who stand outside the charmed circle. But route your matter through one of the favoured firms and suddenly the senior is available, the conversation changes, and the fee structure becomes remarkably flexible. It is, frankly, astonishing how openly and effortlessly this cartel operates.

Which leads to a question we have been far too hesitant to confront: has the time come to reconsider — perhaps even dismantle — the entire edifice of Senior Advocates and AoRs? The oft-cited claim that AoRs provide some form of meaningful filtration is, to put it politely, implausible. Everyone within the profession knows it. What remains today is a structure that is conceptually outdated and practically repurposed to restrict access to Supreme Court work.

And here we must also address the hypocrisy. A number of younger designated seniors — including the NLS and NLU pedigrees who present themselves as the torchbearers of professional ethics — are, in reality, running what are effectively law firms. They draft. They file. They brief other seniors. They do precisely what the rules say they should not — all while maintaining a veneer of sanctimony about the honour of the designation. Even some of the “stars” so frequently lauded on this very platform are immersed in this charade.

Perhaps the time has come to speak about this openly — and honestly.

Let’s discuss this.