There are just eight days left to apply for what must be the hottest jobs in the judiciary — the first specifically appointed posts in the new supreme court. There are three vacancies, as three law lords will retire between now and the start of the court next autumn (Lord Hoffmann, Lord Carswell and Lord Scott of Foscote). For the first time candidates for the highest court in the land must apply. So what are the qualifications to be one of Britain’s top judges?

An advert in The Times (October 30) said that candidates must either have held “high judicial office for at least two years or to have been a qualifying practitioner [a lawyer or legal academic] for a period of at least 15 years”.

So, academics may apply and also top QCs. One rumour is that the advert was so worded to entice the likes of Jonathan Sumption, QC. It’s not known if he would ditch his handsome earnings or not, but so far 31 people have asked for information packs. Not all the obvious contenders have applied yet, however — senior judges being out of practice with applying for jobs of any kind.

Leaving aside a Northern Ireland candidate to replace Lord Carswell, the hot tips are Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Lloyd. Both Lord Justice Carnwath and Lady Justice Arden are known to be interested — and in the case of the latter would make the first husband and wife team in the highest court (her husband is the law lord Lord Mance).

So, judge-wise, the new court will look different from the present House of Lords’ appellate committee. In what other way will it change?

This week about 200 judges and lawyers met for a seminar on the shape of the UK supreme court and to hear a report on six seminars held between January and June at the School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London. It has been more than five years since the Government announced its intention to create the court but only now are the building blocks — literally and in every other way — starting to be visible.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior law lord who will become the new court’s president, put the essence of the debate like this: would the move be one of form rather than one of substance? Will it prove, as many hope, to be a catalyst for change in the way that the court works?

Physically, the law lords, who will become justices of the supreme court, will simply cross Parliament Square to what was Middlesex Guildhall. Most, perhaps all, will welcome the move from cramped and hidden corridors in the House of Lords to the refurbished building that will combine old and new styles.

Lord Hope of Craighead, who has been heading a small law lords’ working party on the court, reminded the audience that on the “grey thundery day in May 2004” when the law lords first visited Middlesex Guildhall it had looked an impossible choice and prompted scathing criticisms by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, then senior law lord. It was now “well on the way to becoming something that will measure fully up to requirements”.

One main feature will be accessibility and visibility: for the first time the public will know and see where the highest court works. (Even if that poses the problem, mused Lord Phillips, of having the most accessible loo in London’s busiest tourist location.) The law lords also sit as the judicial committee of the Privy Council, on final appeals from Commonwealth countries. That courtroom will also move from its Downing Street site.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removes prohibitions on broadcasting taking place, even though a policy decision on that has yet to be made. Jenny Rowe, chief executive of the court, told the seminar that cables are being laid to allow for cameras and webcasts. Most law lords seem unfazed by the prospect. Rowe told the seminar: “My personal view . . . is that we should be looking in the first instance at the broadcast of delivery of judgments.” That, though, would require judgments to include details of what the case was about (not always so now) as well as a summary of the court’s decision. So some broadcasting looks likely, as well as transmission of the proceedings through a webcast on the court’s website.

The question of summaries raises a host of other questions: who should write these and who is the target audience? At present the law lords’ rulings, with sometimes five separate fully argued and, in parts, conflicting opinions, are difficult to digest and can confuse practitioners. So should there be a move towards one lead judgment or at least more structured judgments where the majority view on each point is clear?

Views are divided. Dawn Oliver, Professor of Constitutional Law, University College London, said that the obvious advantage of a single judgment was that it was easier for everyone to know what had been said. So it could increase legal certainty. Against that, there would have to be “a fudging of reasoning”, the danger of compromise. The process of writing itself clarified thought and that would be lost if only one judge wrote the judgment, she said. “Each judge [at present] takes personal responsibility for the conclusion they reach and spells out the reasoning in their judgment. I think that is a very important aspect of what common law judges do — it is a very individualised system of justice we have . . . and judges get their immortality through the judgments they give.”

The format of judgments will depend partly on the size of the panel. The new court may sit regularly with seven, nine or eleven, rather than the standard five now. In turn, larger panels will mean either bigger delays or the supreme court handling less work. Alan Paterson, author of The Law Lords, noted that regular panels of nine would lead to “more single judgments” which was a different style of decision-making — “more bargaining, decision-making by committee”.

A fuller panel, Lord Pannick, QC, argued, lessened the danger of a conclusion depending on the judges chosen. In time, he believes, there will be a move towards single lead judgments — even if individual judges can add concurring or dissenting footnotes. “How can we justify a legal system in which the law as decided by the supreme court of the land may have been differently decided if only different judges were sitting?”

If the volume of cases was reduced, that was not necessarily “a bad thing”, he added. “Since the supreme court is to decide the most important and difficult cases, it is most likely to arrive at the right answer for the right reason if it draws on the collective brainpower of as many as possible.”

There remains a host of other issues, as outlined by the seminar chairman, Andrew Le Sueur, Professor of Public Law at Queen Mary, in his booklet on the seminars. How, for instance, should the judges be chosen for each appeal or for deciding on leave to appeal? What kind of work will the new court take on — for instance, will it hear more constitutional or human rights cases? What cases should be allotted to what size of panel? Finally, which lower courts should be able to grant leave for litigants to go to the supreme court?

Astonishingly, even the law lords admitted that they do not know how they are selected for specific cases. Baroness Hale of Richmond said judges did not know their cases until after the “horses for courses” meeting by the senior and deputy senior law lords.

There was a consensus that however it is done, the method should be transparent: some judges would need to be chosen for their expertise in a given case; but after that, Lord Pannick said, random selection, “like the national lottery”, would seem to be the fairest method.

In the next few months the law lords will agree policy on these issues — although as Lord Justice Carnwath said, the perspective of the consumer, or litigant, should be there. “I can’t think of any other body that is having a £60 million makeover without knowing the views of the consumer as to what they want,” he said.

For the time being, it is easier to say what the court will not be. There is no sense that it should, US-style, turn into a “real” supreme court with the power to strike down primary legislation, Professor Le Sueur notes. The concern is the opposite: that in trying to show people outside that it will not be more judicially active, it may turn out to be more conservative that if it remained in Parliament.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• City law firms prepare for painful year ahead
• Welcome to 2009: the year of the regulator
• Thacher Proffitt is latest US legal casualty