The envelope — thick, hopefully, rather than thin — could thud through the door any day now. The list of candidates recommended to become Queen's Counsel and join the elite ranks of the legal profession is now with the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw. With luck, the Queen may announce the new so-called silks (from their silk robes) before Christmas, although David Watts, who heads the QC appointments secretariat, has no inkling as to timing.

The chosen ones win the world-renowned badge of the English legal profession, the initials QC, and a passport to higher earnings, although not necessarily immediately (who wants an expensive young QC when you can have a less costly experienced junior?). The list of names is dissected throughout the Inns of Court and by law firms who may have their own candidates. But no more so than this year.

This QC selection round is the second under the new independent appointments system, set up by the profession and now removed from any involvement by Whitehall officials or the Lord Chancellor.

The aim is two-fold: to remove any perception of patronage by the Lord Chancellor, judges or senior legal figures, and to make the system transparent and fair, so encouraging a wider spectrum of applicants — solicitors, more women and lawyers not necessarily known by senior members of the judiciary from mainstream chambers.

The list of recommended names went to Mr Straw on October 26. So the whole process has taken 12 months, about the same as the old system under which successful applicants were announced on Maundy Thursday each year. But unlike Lord Irvine of Lairg, Mr Straw is unlikely to amend the list: Derry Irvine was known to have replaced recommended candidates from the A-list with names he favoured from the B-list.

But as with the new Judicial Appointments Commission, this new fair and open QC selection system comes at a price — literally. No longer subsidised by the taxpayer, applicants must now pay a hefty £2,500 fee, up 39 per cent from £1,800 in 2006, to ensure the scheme is self-financing. Only those who are almost certain of succeeding are likely to fork out the money.

One result is that the appointments panel has received only 333 applicants this year, compared with 443 in 2006, a figure artificially inflated because of the three-year gap in appointments while the old system was disbanded and the new introduced. The shortfall (running costs were based on some 500 applications coming in) raises the alarming spectre of even higher costs next year, with consequently even fewer applications.

And what of the breakdown of those applying? The number of women seeking silk has dropped, from 68 to 51; and although the number of ethnic minority candidates is down from 22 in 2006 to 20, their percentage rises from 5 to 7 per cent. There are also fewer solicitors than before: six, compared with twelve in 2006.

The breakdown therefore is: men 83 per cent; women 16 per cent (1 per cent do not declare their sex); white 92 per cent; disabled 1 per cent; employed barristers 2 per cent and solicitors 2 per cent.

Broken into broad fields of practice, 55 per cent are doing civil work; 38 per cent criminal and 7 per cent family.

So it seems there's a lot of holding back — perhaps to see how the new system works, but also, probably, because of the cost. Successful candidates face paying out a further £3,000 (plus VAT), but at least there's also the prospect of higher earnings.

Whatever the reason, the figures will raise questions about the success of the scheme when judged against its chief aim: to ensure that the best are chosen for the elite rank of Queen's Counsel, irrespective of connections, sex or race. The old system, with its reliance on private references or so-called "secret soundings" had to go. But it will be an irony if, in throwing out old-fashioned and unfair procedures, the selection system ends up being less accessible than before.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO